Since we seem to actually be calming down a little here, do you believe the enforcement is actually necessary? With the number of people recusing themselves it seems like this will work out as a mess, and if you're willing to meet me halfway re: considering what I'm saying based on policy and stop accusing people of bias and censorship, I think we could actually get something done on these pages. As I said, I do think a politics section on AR15 is justified. Herr Gruber ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see my close of this AE request you're involved in. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 05:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SIG MCX". 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 3 August 2016.
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. 22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:RSN discusses if sources are reliable or not, they don't approve edits. Your edit is NOT suported by the source. See Talk:SIG MCX. Thomas.W talk 19:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been off wikipedia for a bit because I haven't been feeling well, I'll take a look at it later. Herr Gruber ( talk) 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning SIG MCX, 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I hope you realise that edits like this one are under Gun Control discretionary sanctions (of which you have been notified) since it deals with gun control issues and the National Rifle Association (the discretionary sanctions cover all edits relating to "governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues" on all pages on Wikipedia). Thomas.W talk 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, if you seriously want truthful technical answers, I will help. That is all I ever tried to do on here was help people learn.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at AR-15 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thomas.W talk 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
What other user accounts have you had before this one? Because you're definitely not a new user, new users don't know their way around from day one, new users don't make edits like these: [3], [4], [5], from the very start, and new user's don't know what topic bans users they haven't previously interacted with have. And to that we can add that the very first article you edited, right after you created this account, is a very obscure and little known article created by Lightbreather, a user who has been site-banned by Arbcom, and who you also mentioned on your talk page within 30 minutes of creating your account, and paid homage to on their talk page not long after... Thomas.W talk 22:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
u mad bruhhhhhhhhh — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (
talk) 19:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The refs were placed out of order, check it now. i included the quote on the last in case your version of Google Books does not support it.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Springee - I didn't want to clutter up the thread too much, but I didn't understand your point about the initial media reports that the gun used was an AR-15 rather than a SIG MCX. My general view is that all journalists make mistakes, however those who correct their mistakes are better than those who don't. Were you suggesting that the Washington Post and other sources that reported the police chief's incorrect identification of the weapon are therefore unreliable?
Regarding the firearm project's advice page, it's interesting advice but it was agreed upon by a group of about seven editors several years ago. I don't think it should bind our editing decisions today. If the principle is sound then we don't need to refer to that advice page - we can just refer to the basic Wikipedia policies to reach the right conclusion. That's my view, at least. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC) (Felsic2's message was copied from User talk:Springee by Springee)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SIG MCX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M16. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Same paragraph and the preface one page up. Personally, I think it is more like the Trooper as the DBs never really did it for me like the Python did. Do you agree? What's your feelings on the Diamondback? Can you believe the prices they get these days?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Do you seriously not know who George Kellgren is?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have never been comfortable with that particular source. I realize it's out there and try to replace it with something better when I can. There are plenty of reliable sources that state what you want, including Newsweek and Bloomberg News. Use something better. Think if you want to just stack sources in a sub par article or if you want to put something out there that is worth reading.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not a bot. I personally try to welcome everyone! I look forward to your positive contributions and maybe you can help with keeping things a bit more balanced. I am willing to put the past behind us if you are.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there - please see talk page for article. Thank you. me again...see talk page (again). 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 22:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
7th September...ayup, you got reverted. See talk page for article for my comment. We will get nowhere discussing 80 percent receivers in that article.
There is a saying. The first time is a fluke. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. Discussion of 80 percent receivers has been deleted three times. I leave it as an exercise to the student to draw the proper conclusion.
Been good working with you. See you on the bitstream. Cheers, 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 14:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You recently added a number of notifications related to this RfC [ [11]]. Please note the notified pages at the bottom of the RfC. Also, please notify the Ford, Chevrolet, and GM talk pages. When it appears an RfC is not going your way it starts to look like campaigning/selective notification when you notify a number of talk pages yet avoid other obvious talk pages such as the manufacture's pages. Springee ( talk) 01:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You inquired about my sources for the Chevrolet Caprice page. The majority is from the Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999, original Chevrolet Caprice brochures, and the MVMA specifications documents that GM originally published for each model year. Police car data is from Edwin Sanow's book on Chevrolet Police Cars and his book on the Encyclopedia of Police Cars, and Michigan State Police police car test results. Caprice 96 ( talk) 13:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I will work on the references as time allows. I can assure you that everything I put on Wiki can be sourced. Unfortunately in my earlier years of editing I didn't add them in at the time and it is very tedious to go back and cite specific sources. I don't know what the rules are, but can I not list off all my sources like a bibliography or do I have to go through and actually add footnotes? I did add the citation for the police care (9C1 section). Which parts are controversial? I will cite those sections first. Caprice 96 ( talk) 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- RAF910 ( talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It looks like someone else took care of it ... Daniel Case ( talk) 16:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Very nice intro on the SIG article. Thank you!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- RAF910 ( talk) 22:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Felsic2. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Nikoroman (talk · contribs), now marked as a sock of PhoenixS15, has been a prolific editor and creator of articles on firearms. As such, I've noticed his edits and all that I've looked at casually have appeared correct. Since the master account is known for vandalism, should I check those edits more carefully for obscure vandalism, hoaxes, or other non-obvious problems? I don't want to spend the time unnecessarily, but if it's a concern it might be easier to do while the contributions are fresh.Felsic2 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
From [12]
Are we recruiting editors to join the discussion? [13] Felsic2 ( talk) 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
− No, it's not a violation of CANVASS. A neutrally worded message was left to an editor who was previously involved. If you think it's a canvass issue, feel free to take it to ANI. I'm not worried in the least. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Read
WP:APPNOTE. "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" My neutrally worded reminder to an editor previously involved in the discussion is completely appropriate. If you feel otherwise, feel free to take it to ANI. I have no worry about how that will turn out.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 17:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Felsic2, you have made several accusations of hounding against myself and other editors. It's time to drop it. The edits you made to Smith & Wesson M&P15 followed the same pattern we disagreed about on previous gun articles. You have edited how many articles in the last month or two? I would also suggest you read what Hounding is. It isn't hounding when other editors object to your controversial edits to multiple articles. As a side comment, please do not restore material to my talk page after I have removed it. You are welcome to post new comments but if I've removed a comment please don't restore it. Springee ( talk) 03:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
(moved to this talk page) Springee, you seem to have a habit of fixating on individual editors and opposing them. You followed me to the Eddie Eagle article, which I eventually left because you seemed to be more concerned with fighting an IP editor than improving the article, and I didn't want to get caught up in that conflict. But even though I withdrew from that you nonetheless followed me to a fresh article, which you've never edited before, for the sole purpose of disagreeing with me. You're not making the point generally, you're not opposing other people who make similar edits, you're only following me. That's why I call it "hounding". Again, I ask you to stop following me around. Felsic2 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
As a self declared [15] and [16] meatpuppet of a banned user you are topic banned from gun related articles. There is ample evidence that your work is a violation of her ban for pov grinding [17] also you attack the editors and pages as she directs from off site. Additionaly I draw attention to your previous warning Both Herr Gruber (talk · contribs) and Felsic2 (talk · contribs) are warned against further battleground and disruptive behavior in the gun control topic area. This will serve as your only warning. J8079s ( talk) 03:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Although we are often at odds on gun control topics, I appreciate that you popped in on this :) ResultingConstant ( talk) 17:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand verifiable sources, but part of the problem on this particular subject is the dearth of such. I know of two books, one by Massad Ayoob, and the other by Mitchell Ota. There might be as many as half a dozen magazine articles on the subjec,t in the last 30+ years. I can quote from the books if you wish, but I was there as much as either of those two gentlemen, and wrote from personal experience. what works? apologies if I'm clumsy at this, still figuring things out. Primogunwriter ( talk) 16:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I see you just edited Pump Action Shotguns. You changed a word, but you didn't correct the false assertion made in that section. I'm not trying to be impolite but I want to ask you if you have any knowledge of firearms? Digitallymade ( talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
All the way to the last section, the detail I was hinting about was mentioned, so I was wrong. But it's still inaccurate in that depiction and in other details. Digitallymade ( talk) 20:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
First of all it's a trigger mechanism related to the disconnector of a self loading firearm. Your change of the page is incorrect. Two types of automatic trigger mechanism:
To say automatic is incorrect and sloppy. Digitallymade ( talk) 04:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Glad to see you. Great work today. You should be proud. Don't sweat the pile-ons, or the reverts. We are all watching intently. Nice to see you remaining patient. It suits you. Darknipples ( talk) 07:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your diligence in support of the neutrality of Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience in explaining the application of Wikipedia's neutrality pillar, and in particular our due weight policy, to our colleagues. Thank you for demonstrating the courage to pursue neutrality in areas of dispute where notice board filings are a technique for defending content favored over policy. Thank you for your work on the essay Gun use, which is an important contribution to the neutrality of the project and is well worthy of promotion to Wikipedia space. 35.161.172.255 ( talk) 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) |
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, your essay, User:Felsic2/Gun use, was moved to Wikipedia:Gun use several times by a sock, and was finally deleted outright. It is currently under deltion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Wikipedia:Gun use. I didn't know if you were aware of the deletions, and thought you might like to have it back. If you do ask for it to be userfied again, you might want to have it move-protected too. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Since we seem to actually be calming down a little here, do you believe the enforcement is actually necessary? With the number of people recusing themselves it seems like this will work out as a mess, and if you're willing to meet me halfway re: considering what I'm saying based on policy and stop accusing people of bias and censorship, I think we could actually get something done on these pages. As I said, I do think a politics section on AR15 is justified. Herr Gruber ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see my close of this AE request you're involved in. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 05:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SIG MCX". 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 3 August 2016.
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. 22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:RSN discusses if sources are reliable or not, they don't approve edits. Your edit is NOT suported by the source. See Talk:SIG MCX. Thomas.W talk 19:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been off wikipedia for a bit because I haven't been feeling well, I'll take a look at it later. Herr Gruber ( talk) 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning SIG MCX, 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I hope you realise that edits like this one are under Gun Control discretionary sanctions (of which you have been notified) since it deals with gun control issues and the National Rifle Association (the discretionary sanctions cover all edits relating to "governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues" on all pages on Wikipedia). Thomas.W talk 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, if you seriously want truthful technical answers, I will help. That is all I ever tried to do on here was help people learn.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at AR-15 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thomas.W talk 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
What other user accounts have you had before this one? Because you're definitely not a new user, new users don't know their way around from day one, new users don't make edits like these: [3], [4], [5], from the very start, and new user's don't know what topic bans users they haven't previously interacted with have. And to that we can add that the very first article you edited, right after you created this account, is a very obscure and little known article created by Lightbreather, a user who has been site-banned by Arbcom, and who you also mentioned on your talk page within 30 minutes of creating your account, and paid homage to on their talk page not long after... Thomas.W talk 22:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
u mad bruhhhhhhhhh — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (
talk) 19:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The refs were placed out of order, check it now. i included the quote on the last in case your version of Google Books does not support it.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Springee - I didn't want to clutter up the thread too much, but I didn't understand your point about the initial media reports that the gun used was an AR-15 rather than a SIG MCX. My general view is that all journalists make mistakes, however those who correct their mistakes are better than those who don't. Were you suggesting that the Washington Post and other sources that reported the police chief's incorrect identification of the weapon are therefore unreliable?
Regarding the firearm project's advice page, it's interesting advice but it was agreed upon by a group of about seven editors several years ago. I don't think it should bind our editing decisions today. If the principle is sound then we don't need to refer to that advice page - we can just refer to the basic Wikipedia policies to reach the right conclusion. That's my view, at least. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC) (Felsic2's message was copied from User talk:Springee by Springee)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SIG MCX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M16. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Same paragraph and the preface one page up. Personally, I think it is more like the Trooper as the DBs never really did it for me like the Python did. Do you agree? What's your feelings on the Diamondback? Can you believe the prices they get these days?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Do you seriously not know who George Kellgren is?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have never been comfortable with that particular source. I realize it's out there and try to replace it with something better when I can. There are plenty of reliable sources that state what you want, including Newsweek and Bloomberg News. Use something better. Think if you want to just stack sources in a sub par article or if you want to put something out there that is worth reading.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not a bot. I personally try to welcome everyone! I look forward to your positive contributions and maybe you can help with keeping things a bit more balanced. I am willing to put the past behind us if you are.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there - please see talk page for article. Thank you. me again...see talk page (again). 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 22:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
7th September...ayup, you got reverted. See talk page for article for my comment. We will get nowhere discussing 80 percent receivers in that article.
There is a saying. The first time is a fluke. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. Discussion of 80 percent receivers has been deleted three times. I leave it as an exercise to the student to draw the proper conclusion.
Been good working with you. See you on the bitstream. Cheers, 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 14:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You recently added a number of notifications related to this RfC [ [11]]. Please note the notified pages at the bottom of the RfC. Also, please notify the Ford, Chevrolet, and GM talk pages. When it appears an RfC is not going your way it starts to look like campaigning/selective notification when you notify a number of talk pages yet avoid other obvious talk pages such as the manufacture's pages. Springee ( talk) 01:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You inquired about my sources for the Chevrolet Caprice page. The majority is from the Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999, original Chevrolet Caprice brochures, and the MVMA specifications documents that GM originally published for each model year. Police car data is from Edwin Sanow's book on Chevrolet Police Cars and his book on the Encyclopedia of Police Cars, and Michigan State Police police car test results. Caprice 96 ( talk) 13:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I will work on the references as time allows. I can assure you that everything I put on Wiki can be sourced. Unfortunately in my earlier years of editing I didn't add them in at the time and it is very tedious to go back and cite specific sources. I don't know what the rules are, but can I not list off all my sources like a bibliography or do I have to go through and actually add footnotes? I did add the citation for the police care (9C1 section). Which parts are controversial? I will cite those sections first. Caprice 96 ( talk) 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- RAF910 ( talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It looks like someone else took care of it ... Daniel Case ( talk) 16:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Very nice intro on the SIG article. Thank you!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- RAF910 ( talk) 22:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Felsic2. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Nikoroman (talk · contribs), now marked as a sock of PhoenixS15, has been a prolific editor and creator of articles on firearms. As such, I've noticed his edits and all that I've looked at casually have appeared correct. Since the master account is known for vandalism, should I check those edits more carefully for obscure vandalism, hoaxes, or other non-obvious problems? I don't want to spend the time unnecessarily, but if it's a concern it might be easier to do while the contributions are fresh.Felsic2 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
From [12]
Are we recruiting editors to join the discussion? [13] Felsic2 ( talk) 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
− No, it's not a violation of CANVASS. A neutrally worded message was left to an editor who was previously involved. If you think it's a canvass issue, feel free to take it to ANI. I'm not worried in the least. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Read
WP:APPNOTE. "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" My neutrally worded reminder to an editor previously involved in the discussion is completely appropriate. If you feel otherwise, feel free to take it to ANI. I have no worry about how that will turn out.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 17:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Felsic2, you have made several accusations of hounding against myself and other editors. It's time to drop it. The edits you made to Smith & Wesson M&P15 followed the same pattern we disagreed about on previous gun articles. You have edited how many articles in the last month or two? I would also suggest you read what Hounding is. It isn't hounding when other editors object to your controversial edits to multiple articles. As a side comment, please do not restore material to my talk page after I have removed it. You are welcome to post new comments but if I've removed a comment please don't restore it. Springee ( talk) 03:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
(moved to this talk page) Springee, you seem to have a habit of fixating on individual editors and opposing them. You followed me to the Eddie Eagle article, which I eventually left because you seemed to be more concerned with fighting an IP editor than improving the article, and I didn't want to get caught up in that conflict. But even though I withdrew from that you nonetheless followed me to a fresh article, which you've never edited before, for the sole purpose of disagreeing with me. You're not making the point generally, you're not opposing other people who make similar edits, you're only following me. That's why I call it "hounding". Again, I ask you to stop following me around. Felsic2 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
As a self declared [15] and [16] meatpuppet of a banned user you are topic banned from gun related articles. There is ample evidence that your work is a violation of her ban for pov grinding [17] also you attack the editors and pages as she directs from off site. Additionaly I draw attention to your previous warning Both Herr Gruber (talk · contribs) and Felsic2 (talk · contribs) are warned against further battleground and disruptive behavior in the gun control topic area. This will serve as your only warning. J8079s ( talk) 03:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Although we are often at odds on gun control topics, I appreciate that you popped in on this :) ResultingConstant ( talk) 17:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand verifiable sources, but part of the problem on this particular subject is the dearth of such. I know of two books, one by Massad Ayoob, and the other by Mitchell Ota. There might be as many as half a dozen magazine articles on the subjec,t in the last 30+ years. I can quote from the books if you wish, but I was there as much as either of those two gentlemen, and wrote from personal experience. what works? apologies if I'm clumsy at this, still figuring things out. Primogunwriter ( talk) 16:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I see you just edited Pump Action Shotguns. You changed a word, but you didn't correct the false assertion made in that section. I'm not trying to be impolite but I want to ask you if you have any knowledge of firearms? Digitallymade ( talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
All the way to the last section, the detail I was hinting about was mentioned, so I was wrong. But it's still inaccurate in that depiction and in other details. Digitallymade ( talk) 20:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
First of all it's a trigger mechanism related to the disconnector of a self loading firearm. Your change of the page is incorrect. Two types of automatic trigger mechanism:
To say automatic is incorrect and sloppy. Digitallymade ( talk) 04:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Glad to see you. Great work today. You should be proud. Don't sweat the pile-ons, or the reverts. We are all watching intently. Nice to see you remaining patient. It suits you. Darknipples ( talk) 07:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your diligence in support of the neutrality of Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience in explaining the application of Wikipedia's neutrality pillar, and in particular our due weight policy, to our colleagues. Thank you for demonstrating the courage to pursue neutrality in areas of dispute where notice board filings are a technique for defending content favored over policy. Thank you for your work on the essay Gun use, which is an important contribution to the neutrality of the project and is well worthy of promotion to Wikipedia space. 35.161.172.255 ( talk) 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC) |
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, your essay, User:Felsic2/Gun use, was moved to Wikipedia:Gun use several times by a sock, and was finally deleted outright. It is currently under deltion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Wikipedia:Gun use. I didn't know if you were aware of the deletions, and thought you might like to have it back. If you do ask for it to be userfied again, you might want to have it move-protected too. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)