Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 162.119.231.132 (talk) at 00:04, 25 January 2015 (alert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, I have noticed that you have made a number of edits to the Second Amendment article. It would be helpful if you were to discuss your ideas about edits to that article on that article's talk page: Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. SaltyBoatr 18:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gun politics interest groups template

Greetings, Miguel Escopeta. I have started a discussion about a recent edit of yours. Feel free to join in, at Template talk:Gun politics interest groups in the United States#Generic political groups. Thanks. — Mudwater 00:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "AR-15". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 December 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning AR-15, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Source on NRA, VA Tech, mental illness

Hi Miguel, do you have a source (independent from the NRA) for the wording you added here? Unless I'm missing something, t doesn't appear to be very consistent with the MSNBC article of 18 Dec 2012, so we need a source with wording closer to the wording in your edit. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Have added a cite addressing this to the article. There is a lot more detail in the newly cited article than just the quote, relative to what was done after Va. Tech. by the NRA. The pertinent NRA lobbying was a really big deal from about 2000 through 2007, based on discussions that ran heated at the time. (Larry Pratt and the GOA were really spun up.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I will probably add back in some wording from the source I added, since the two sources seem to have considerably differing perspectives & language. (I'm assuming for now that both sources are equal in weight; until now I hadn't heard of Military.com.) regards, Middle 8 (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent work

You do a lot of excellent work. I think that our conflict at Assault weapon is mostly a matter of speaking different languages. I tend to see and think in the logical underpinnings, structure and definitions, both of what is written and of the related guidelines. North8000 (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun control

I reverted one of your edits to the Gun control article, and left a pertinent comment on the talk page. Cheers! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made repairs and put the entry back in place with some pertinent comments. I have also removed passages and references to Miguel Faria's self published blog. Cheerio.StopYourBull (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A significant improvement. I have tweaked it further, to identify clearly the perspectives, and added a Kopel observation, too. Cheers! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Double oughts

I think there was just more detail on shotguns than warranted for a general page. TREKphiler 19:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverts without coming to talk - Gun Control

The article clearly has a tag saying it is too American since 2010, clearly there is no consensus yet you revert without coming to the talk to discuss. Come to the talk and discuss why a section on a world wide scope should lead with a US commentary that hasn't been fixed since 2010. This is not consensus, it's called bullying or editing by cabal. Come and bring your rationale-Justanonymous (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Have left comments on the talk page. Was just about to post my comments there when your message arrived here, first :-) You need to check out the talk page! And, you should give enough time for editors to write something there!  :-) By the way, WP:BRD implies that a major change to a consensus version can be tried (you did this), and then reverted (the R in BRD), which happened, and then discussed. Looks like we are following this procedure exactly! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

HOw can you have consensus to leave a lie in the encyclopedia. Go read the entry, this is not a "particular problem to the United States" - that's saying that the United STates is worse off than Mexico, Brazil, and a full half of subsaharan africa. You reverted to an untruth. Which cannot remain. Further it's not about the United States or especially about the united states, this is a worldwide article on gun control and also a historical article. I won't demean you or chastise you. WE need to go to the talk of the page and fix the article. It's a mess and nonfacts cannot be the rationale consensus. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But it is a particular problem to the United States, primarily because a right to arms is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Attempting to remove Constitutionally-protected arms is precisely what makes this a particular problem to the United States. There is no guarantee to arms in England, for example, due primarily to parliamentary supremacy, and the erosion of God-given rights, in place of the fixed Constitution in the US which established and essentially fixed the rights of newly-freed Englishmen as they existed in 1791. In 1791, the American concept to a right to arms was precisely identical to the English concept. It was only with the erosion of the rights to arms of Englishmen, in England, and subsequently of the rights to arms of Englishmen in Canada, Australia, etc., that forced gun control, to erode the rights of men. Your approach, to delete cited content that goes counter to your world view, is not the way Misplaced Pages works. All major viewpoints need to be covered. The viewpoints contrary to your world view must remain, where cited, assuming verifiability. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The context you just added here is not on the article next to the "especially in the United States" The only thing there is a statistic on gun violence levels leading the reader to think that the United States especially has a problem because of the violence level not due to the existence of the second amendment. This needs to be fixed right away.-13:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you two may be in agreement at the "big picture" level but may not realize that. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming to realize that. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, I started realizing that, too, over the weekend. I'm still watching the editing, but I don't see a need to jump back into the middle of that mess right now. The details of the current back and forth editing on the Nazi content there, that largely says the same thing at the big picture level, is much the same, but the positions of the editors appears just to be from a different set of perspectives. Most interesting! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment Collective-Rights History pre-Heller

Please review prior to editing or commenting further on the Second Amendment. I have posted it on the Talk Page as well, but I'm reaching out to you and all other editors personally because I sincerely believe when you review the evidence and when you search for contrary evidence, you will see I am correct about this history.

The law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.

Here are some quotes from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.

“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.” ...

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.

“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.

Lund agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”

OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:

- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)

- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)

All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.

Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.

Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.

Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.

My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.

An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.

Further sources:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)

GreekParadise (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll play. Here's just one quote from JFK. Note that his use of "right of each citizen", and "every citizen" are clearly written in a singular form, not as a collection of citizens:

By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important. -Senator John F. Kennedy, April 1960"

This clearly shows that JFK was supportive of an individual right, not a collective right, for the Second Amendment! Where's my $100? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

revert

Not sure why you reverted, my "original research" is a well-accepted fact. The amendment is controversial, and has been interpreted numerous ways. Ive re-added the sentence, with a plethora of citations. We are on the same side here, don't be pedantic and lets not waste each other's time here eh?Gaijin42 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Without citations, it looked like "original research". With cites, and re-worded, it now looks fine! Cheers! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Gun shows in the United States

Hello Escopeta. It's not enough to provide a citation. Per policy, the citation needs to come from a reliable source WP:RS, be secondary in nature WP:Secondary, and not self-published WP:SELFPUB. I have reverted your edit HERE because it fails these. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Gracias! -- Miguel Escopeta (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Project Appleseed

Hello, I'm KillerChihuahua. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Misplaced Pages as a "soapbox" are against Misplaced Pages policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. I don't know if you're associated with Appleseed, and I don't care. Please stop adding all the extra sales brochure and how-to like content; that is not Misplaced Pages's purpose. KillerChihuahua 15:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Have restored to the version before you removed the cited information. Please discuss on talk page (WP:BRD), don't simply remove cited information. Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove any cited information; I removed a crapton of stuff from their website, which was written like a sales brochure. Misplaced Pages is not for advertising or promotion. KillerChihuahua 15:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am rewriting this article, from what it was last week before you removed all the content, to fix the promotional content problems. Please work with me on this! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You restored all the promotional content. This is unacceptable. KillerChihuahua 15:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not ultimately going to be promotional. I am editing/removing the promotional content, without removing all the content of the article that you removed. You essentially removed the entire article. Let's not throw the baby out with the wash, here. There is a lot of good information that can be salvaged. Please read the article and don't edit war, OK? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

merge !vote

Slightly confused by your comment, as gun control seems to be a huge component of gun politics whearas you said "small". However, this dovetails very nicely into a debate I am engaged in with another editor. Are you aware of reliable sources discussing/defining gun politics aspects OTHER than gun control? I think it is patently obvious that there are many topics outside gun control (although of lesser importance/coverage) but one of the editors is insisting that unless I can find sources establishing the difference between politics and control, there is in fact no difference. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control DR

There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control

Looks like the dispute has already died. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As soon as the AN closes the DR will be reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Have written an opening statement. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment article to dispute resolution

Just in case you were not notified GreekParadise filed a dr on this issue. Your participation there would be very much appreciated. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not notified. Have responded to the DR and participated. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In your recent comment move on this DR, you cut 10stone5's comment section in half. Was this intentional? If so you might want to clarify your purpose. If unintentional, you may want to fix. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

10stone5's second comment is in reference to Transportman's comment to everyone. I did not cut 10stone5's opening comments in half. Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

2A lead

I know that you do good work. If you're thinking of knocking that out again, can you come to talk first? Thanx. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Was out of town for a few days. In the meantime, it looks like an improvement has been made. The statement still seems very much out of place in the lede, but at least it now has a cite. It is not really appropriate in the lede of this article, being the statement is about the right that is protected, not about the 2A that protects the right which is the actual topic of the article. We could just as well add the dicta that the rights protected by the 2A doesn't require citizenship, which was also in an earlier SCOTUS ruling, and it would be just as (ir)relevant. A cite would be easy for this additional statement. Being it is kind of hard to pick up a feces by the clean end and try to remove it when there are so many trying to push an agenda in the lede by adding it back in, perhaps a cite is about the best that can be had for what is largely an irrelevant aside unrelated to the topic of the article itself. (Any comment(s) on adding the lack of necessity for citizenship for the right, from the earlier SCOTUS ruling? That would certainly cause some mental gymnastics in the editors that are pushing an agenda to regulate firearms, in the modern sense of the word, not in the "well-regulated" meaning sense of the 18th Century.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) On the right vs the amendment, that is easily addressed by a minor wording change "The extent to which the right is protected by the amendment is not unlimited" or some such. Similar objection to limited, or citizen would equally apply to individual. If the amendments only purpose is to protect a right, then defining the right which is protected is obviously salient (unless we want to push everything about the right into the RTKABA article, and basically gut the 2a article. Frankly this topic is incredibly controversial (although I think the 3 of us are probably close to the same page) and the most crucial questions from the public are who has the right (individuals) and how expansive is the right (not unlimited, but what the limits actually are is unknown at this point). Citizens/americans is of lesser importance compared to "individuals" and also a more complex answer since not all citizens are protected (felons etc) and some non-citizens are. That may be better for the body than the lede. (late signing) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Jerky

I think my summary was "while true, not central to the article." I'm not convinced that the article is served by a digression into gun show cuisine in the very first sentence. Perhaps it should be mentioned farther down? Jerky and dried meat processing marketing at gun shows in general seems to be a concession to a sadly widespread lack of cooking skills among hunters. I used to know a guy in college who hunted and was an excellent cook: his fresh smoked venison hams were about as far removed from jerky as could be. Acroterion (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In order to merit inclusion, there need to be reliable sources that say that it is an important part of gun show culture. Countless other things are sold at gun shows; bow hunting items, canned foods, food preservatives, tools for dressing game, camouflage, political tracts, jewelry, on and on. Jerky may be sold at gun shows; it is not notable enough for inclusion in the lede. The inclusion was previously backed up by a link to a company that sells jerky; I removed both the info and the link, because it was pure advertising. Again, without reliable sources, it doesn't merit inclusion. Anastrophe (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we all were leaving notes simultaneously. A possible reference is here. There is certainly a lot more than guns sold at gun shows. I personally know several people that only go to gun shows to buy their next month's supply of jerky and to socialize :-) That said, Jerky is more commonly sold at gun shows than many types of guns! (Cheap derringers, specifically, come to mind.) I have never been to a gun show in the South East US that didn't have jerky for sale. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Why does jerky specifically need to be mentioned? As opposed to knife sharpeners? It would be sufficient to say that many non-firearm related items are sold, without specifically naming them all. The assortment could be listed as trivia later in the article, but it's definitely not so important that the lede requires mention of it. Anastrophe (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

At any typical gun show in the South East US, jerky dealers usually number 3 to 5 dealers at each show. This is at small shows that only have 50 to 100 tables. On the other hand, knife sharpeners are usually limited to just one table, if that, at these size shows. For the larger shows, though, with 300 to 500+ tables, there are typically many more jerky dealers, often amounting to as many as 12 to 18 dealers. That said, there are admittedly two types of gun shows, those that encourage jerky and those that ban it (as alluded to here.) For something that seems to be inherent in most every gun show, though, I prefer that we be inclusive, rather than exclusive. That said, the traveling social mall aspect of gun shows is something that has been left out of the present article. It would seem only fair that we include cited references to the larger venue that gun shows have become. Keep in mind that the majority of readers that peruse this article have never, ever, been to a gun show, in all likelihood. They think of gun shows as places where guns are sold illegally (which is extremely far from the truth, what with at least 5+ ATF agents wandering the aisles in civilian clothes at even the little 50 to 100 table shows!) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, jerky dealers usually outnumber ammunition dealers at gun shows. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I cant quite decide if you are trolling/joking, or just in some gun show culture very different. I have been at gun shows all through the midwest, and have never seen more jerky vendors than gun related items. The secondary stuff I see at my shows is either knives, or accessories (range bags, holsters, etc). In either case, both of our experiences are WP:OR and any statement about gun shows in general would need to be backed by a source talking about gun shows in general, and not just one particular gun show experience. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The wapo source above is much more a source about general flea market atmosphere (or banning of that atmosphere) and does not even mention jerky. If we want to say gun shows sell things other than guns, then that is fine (but probably not for the lede) but we should not be calling out particular products unless there is very good sourcing. In any case, this entire conversaion proably belongs on the talk page and not here. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you say, but it should be in the body of the article, rather than the first line of the article, where it should give info on all the other sorts of things that are sold there. I went to go shows for a few years way back in the early 1990's, and I saw jerky, but I also saw extensive jewelry/pin/button sellers, knife sharpeners, etc etc - but all that is just my first person experience (and way outdated). the article you linked to would be fine for expanding on the various things sold - but the lede should simply say that many non-firearm items are also sold at shows, then go into details (briefly) in the body. It's a question of how much weight we give to something that - while interesting - isn't fundamental to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not trolling or joking. Probably just experiencing a different gun show culture. The gun show culture was noticeably different in the 90's than ten years ago, than over just the last 5 years. There are noticeable differences in gun show cultures across the US, as well as even within just single states. What I do find most interesting, though, is the very large number of traveling dealers that travel a regular circuit through several states, only selling their wares on the weekends, and repeating large looping circuits every 4 to 8 weeks. Some of these guys travel circuits amounting to 3,000+ miles every 4-8 weeks. These are most commonly and specifically the non-gun dealers! Gun dealers, on the other hand, typically only travel within just one state, due to FFL laws, or between a couple of states, in the few cases where gun dealers (with FFLs) have physical stores in each of the states. I do think we ought to include a little more of the culture of the modern gun show scene. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision to article vis-à-vis "hand-" vs. "reloading."

In the article on handloading, I noted with interest your decision to delete an addition I made clarifying a highly misleading (though not terribly important) statement attributed to "McPherson" suggesting that "...handloads tend to be of generally high quality while reloads tend to be merely functional." If Mr. McPherson did indeed make such a statement, it is a profoundly vague generalization that, if taken at face value, can paint a false impression...certainly among the highly impressionable. For one thing, it does nothing to distinguish handloading from reloading. I note you are very well versed in myriad topics relating to firearms, and I suspect you are probably aware that serious competitors routinely use handloaded cartridges from cases previously fired in a given firearm; ie, they are actually using reloaded ammunition made from a previously fired case that is fireformed to the gun's chamber. In ammo so loaded, the previously fired cases are frequently neck sized only to provide sufficient tension to hold the bullet. Now, whether this practice does indeed provide superior cartridges, I believe, remains a topic of lively debate. But the fact is, it is a common practice, one I employ myself, and I can assure you these "reloads" are in no way inferior to carefully crafted "handloads" made from virgin brass. The statement is also puzzling in that, as is, it adds nothing to the article (except confusion). If anything it seems to imply a cultural distinction between the elite handloader and a sort of "blue-collar" reloader, who is merely interested in "function." The word "function" itself is odd as used. Is the "reloader" interested only in saving a buck? Content with his work as long as the gun goes "bang" when he pulls the trigger? Again, this matter is hardly worth quibbling over. But inasmuch as the observation attributed to McPherson raises more questions than it addresses, why include it at all? It seems to have been tossed in there casually for a purpose that escapes me. "At least one" person's casual observation, which I suspect might have been taken out of context, does little to inform, and in this case, is indeed misleading. And the clarifying text I added hardly requires authoritative referencing, any more than if I claimed that some people like Budweiser while others prefer to brew their own beer. Okay...not the greatest analogy, but it is widely understood, and indisputable.

This is not a dispute—it's not terribly important to me—but you strike me as an articulate, highly informed writer in this area, which is why your rationale for deleting my addition so puzzles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR Scriptor (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert Spitzer

Please review the policy on living persons located at WP:BLP. Including information disputed by the subject that is sourced only to student newspapers and partisan commentators is highly questionable. Writing that information in Misplaced Pages's voice ("x is a y") is unacceptable. Please engage in discussions on the talk page as opposed to reverting. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hipocrite (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What edit war? Adding a cite is an edit war? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Were you aware of the three revert rule before I told you about it? Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit summary is dishonest. You did not merely "add a cite." Please be more careful with your edit summaries. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked back and see that instead of adding a cite needed tag you removed a statement that was a summary of what is in the body text of the article. OK. So, I simply added a cite for the wording you had removed. I don't think adding a cite is engaging in an edit war. On the other hand, it appears that you are engaging in an edit war with the many editors of this article. Let's work together, OK? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Were you aware of the three revert rule before I told you about it? I am happy to discuss on the talk page of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is stupid. The same thing happened on my talk page. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

racist

"Subhuman mongrel" and "chimpanzee" are not racist? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What race are they? How can such offensive name calling be called racist, when race is not even mentioned? No, these are not racist. They are just offensive and stupid. Offensive and stupid does not equate to being racist. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling a black person subhuman and a chimpanzee is racist. There is really no other way to interpret it. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Whereas calling George Bush the same names was not considered racist. No, it is clearly offensive, whomever is called such "outlandish" and "crude" names, but it is not racist, in any case. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it just means that Obama is now also being recognized as "Presidential", at least according to this article, along with Hillary and "W" Bush. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

AGF, please

Re: this edit that I added with edit summary, "adding current, international overview info from GunPolicy.org," and that you modified with the edit summary, "clean up extreme POV push; it is not civilians that are killing the majority of the people that die, but, rather, the governments with guns."

I meant absolutely NO POV push with that edit. I simply paraphrased the source, Global Impact of Gun Violence at gunpolicy.org. When I make mistakes - and of course I do - I'm glad to have them corrected, but the POV push comment was unnecessary and not WP:AGF. Of course the killings are done with civilian AND government owned guns (though I'll make no comment about who's doing the majority of it, since the source hasn't either).

Again, thanks for the correction, but in the future, can you keep the edit summary civil? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Gun safety

Thanks for your help on the Gun safety. It's looking a lot better now. Rezin (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gun show loophole controversy

I was trying to get, in the first sentence, that the term is only used by those who want to restrict firearm sales. You removed that in this edit. It's grammatically better, but it lost important information. If that is in there, pejorative shouldn't be necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

== DS alert

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33