User talk:Guncontrolsupporter

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. K1ng l0v3 15:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)



Response ~ deleting such profanity from the Brady Campaign entry (such as what had been previously on it, including such awful terms as "F***k the Brady Campaign" (under a "Trivia" section) and "God didn't make people equal, Mr. Colt did..." which was also included with this remark) is absolutely NOT vandalism.

I'm not sure what's going on with this user named "K1ng10v3" ~ he or she may be the person putting on those types of posts, or allowing them to remain ~ as this person seems to be the only one who wrote after I deleted such profanity & inaccuracies under the "Criticisms" section. However, the false assertion on the recent Virginia Tech. massacre remains. I have contacted the "Wikipedia" foundation chair via email as well as the press email listed ~ in order to check into this ongoing problem of someone apparently using the Wikipedia online encyclopedia to either smear the Brady Campaign or deliberately provide inaccurate information about this gun control advocacy organization. Hopefully, they can correct the entry & resolve this matter. I have also contacted the Brady Campaign to let them know what has been occurring under their entry name. I'm sure they won't be too happy to see the false information there. Moreover, I did respond to user "K1ng10v3" & interestingly, this user did not reply, and had my note to him deleted.


 * I deleted your post because you left it my user page, instead of on my talk page where it should have been posted. I placed the test2a template on you because you have twice removed the entire criticism section with no comment in the edit summary or discussion on the talk page of the article (which should be your stop, not the Foundation.) When your user name is partisan "Guncontrolsupporter" and you are excising an article on gun control of the entire criticism section then you should expect to get called to task on it. K1ng l0v3 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down
Sir, today you posted this:"I received your unsolicited (once again) note on my userpage. In response, I would appreciate your not continuing to bother me. It's beginning to feel like harassment (which I don't enjoy).  I've already contacted the appropriate persons at Wikipedia, and they are looking into this.  I will await their email (as they know how to contact me).  I've also invited them to review all communications/actions on 'my talk' page ~ which I will never delete.  Everything you've written will be available for them to consider.  Lastly, my username is fine, period and I'm shocked, frankly, that you would make such assumptions.  I'm sure Wikipedia will find out who put the profanity on the Brady Campaign entry here (was it yourself?), as well as false assertions/wrong assumptions (once again, was it yourself?).  Once again, all communications in 'my talk' are open for them to review."

If I may point you towards some helpfull reading; here are the rules that all editors must follow. Discussion and consensus are key to the way Wikipedia operates so unsolicited communication (posting on talk pages both article and user) is how we all talk to eachother. I'm not sure what "appropriate persons" you are refering to as this is a free encylopedia that anyone can edit. Also, Wikipedia is not censored and while vandalism is prohibited, profanity is not. Now, as for your particular edits to Brady Campaign. Your edits have been reverted by two other editors for the same reason, you are removing an entire section from an article with no discussion and no edit summary. Your edits that removed the trivia were not questioned because trivia does not belong in encyclopedia articles not because profanity is disallowed. Finding out who posted what and when to an article is something you can do yourself by clicking on the History tab at the top of any page. This will display the edit history of the page in question and you can view any version or do side-by-side comparisons of 2 different versions of a page. Nothing on Wikipedia really gets deleted when you can go back to the very start of every article or page. While your user name does, IMHO, contravene username policy, please note the section that contraindicates "Promotion of a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view." All that I posted earlier was to suggest that you picked a username that explicitly endorses one side of a highly contentious, polarized debate. Then you edit an article on that polarized subject to remove any criticism of the group that your username evinces support of, without any comment or discussion, you should not be surprised that other editors question your edits. Imagine if an editor chose as a username "WhitePowerKKK" and then edited the article about the Ku Klux Klan to remove any criticism, without an edit summary and without any discussion. Have a good day. K1ng l0v3 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern about your username
Hello, Guncontrolsupporter, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:
 * If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
 * If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
 * You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Administrator intervention against vandalism or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again!K1ng l0v3 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

This user (K1ng10v3) left me a very ODD response above the other day ~ before the welcoming post ~ regarding several false assumptions made & a bizarre comparison to the name of the KKK etc.) ~ that I found to be highly offensive, in particular, because I am a minority woman. He also seems to be trying to manipulate myself & others here ~ to find out personal information as you can easily see from his Welcome letter (which is absolutely none of his business).  I noticed on his userpage, several complaints about him which I read through before he deleted them.  What a shame that we run into these kinds of people on the Internet.  However, I would advise not trusting him to edit anything of importance on "Wikipedia."  Otherwise, you could be liable for his inaccuracies.


 * NOTE to Other Wikipedia Administrators:

If K1ng10v3 is an administrator (though he has never indicated such), I would like to request that someone take a look into his comments & my responses on my userpage. He is making some bizarre comparisons & I'm considering writing someone to look into this ... as his notes are offensive. I would appreciate someone with authority to look into this person, who has had many complaints lodged against him by other users here. Thank you.

Dear madam. I must insist that you cease your trolling on my talkpage. It is clear from everything you have posted that you are not here to contibute in any way to the encyclopedia but rather, to engage in partisan harassment. The post above is a legitimate question about your user name, please see USERNAME for the rules governing the selection of a username. Your username falls under the rubrik of offensive usernames, to whit Offensive usernames include those that refer or allude to I'm sorry if discussion and consensus are alien concepts to you, but that is the way things work around here. The only things at issue here are your edits. You edited an article several times to remove all of the criticism of the article's subject (please see NPOV); your edits were reverted by 3 different editors, all of whom asked you to explain your reasoning on the article's talk page. Instead of responding and discussing your edits in a good faith attempt to reach consensus, you have harassed me with baseless accuzations of putting profanity into articles. I again urge you to take a look at our policies and guidelines to gain a better understanding of how to edit here. K1ng l0v3 23:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Promotion of a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view.

ANOTHER STRANGE RESPONSE ON MY USER PAGE FROM K1ng10v3 (above) ~ Admins & Users, feel free to take a look ~

NOTE to Wikipedia: What this user, K1ng10v3, is trying to do now with his last unpleasant remark to me (see directly above) is called ~ in as nice a term as I can think of ~ trying to throw out proverbial 'red herrings,' because he's in trouble for his edits. It's very clear to me that this user, K1ng10v3, doesn't know what he's doing here ... and shouldn't be editing at all. I appreciate that there are others here who more carefully weigh their words & actions on Wikipedia ~ obviously, they're not all like this particular user, K1ng10v3. Maybe, he just doesn't know any better. Shame.