User talk:Justanonymous/Archive 1

Welcome Justanonymous! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are users!

Hello, Justanonymous. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm CT Cooper, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own private sandbox] for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your userpage.

 Sincerely, CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CT_Cooper&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

I will respond to your message on my talk page. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

agenda 21
I think you could make a case that since agenda 21 is a popular, or semi popular topic among right wing republicans (for want of a better term - if you want to replace right wing republican with a less charged term, no problem) it seems that a encyclopedia article on agenda 21 would cover how it is percieved (thats basic, right) and in that discussion, the right wing fantasys about the KGB/CIA/rothschild/soros world conspiracy would fit Further, that people seem to be *misquoting* the document is relevant; i agree that it is vague and you could argue that golf courses fit under unsustainable, but I believe people are quoting the document, which is an error my apoligies if i've messed up something with formats or something - complain to wiki admins who make the ssytem so complex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.121.54 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics of Global Warming
Hey, no worries. The unexplained removal just triggered my vandalism filter.

But I noticed quite quickly after reverting your edits that you were in the middle of major editing process and undid my own edit. I don't have any doubts of your good faith, so please, continue your editing in peace. Widr (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

wishlist
Now we're at it: great you're planning to do further updating of the Kyoto maps this week. I'll think about it and give some input on the page there, but let me add something to my wishlist already that otherwise is just going to clutter the page (btw, this could be the moment to go svg; what do you think about that?) L.tak (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * South Sudan!
 * South Sudan should not be too difficult. I have the svg file of the map and going svg would make it easier for future updates by other editors.  Look for some activity midweek or so from me on the Kyoto talk page first. Justanonymous (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook slant
Hi JA, Your efforts and comments are appreciated. I agree with you completely that the article is clearly anti-gun oriented. So far my efforts have been to try and keep it neutral hence my questioning of the inclusion of the Dunblane and Cleveland shooting links when the existing lists cover those and far more. Switching the Reactions section to Condolences was a BS maneuver in order to remove any political commentary --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome and thank you for "watching my back". Being a dispassionate anything seems to be in short supply these days. Passion has its place and uses, but its completely useless and potentially damaging in others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

đ== NRA and gun bashing == Is it me or does it seem like there's a movement to include the Sandy Hook shooting in every conceivable way in articles where it makes no sense whatsoever?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * there is a lot of POV pushing going on out there. Lately I've found myself watching pages that I never watched before and there is most definitely a push to insert this everywhere. Thx for the help keeping the POV pushing in line.  I'll help.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I joined the WikiProject Firearms, maybe we can post a note and get some assistance with the format, editing, and patrolling of the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. We need help out here.  These are encyclopedia articles and they're being treated like POV laden tabloids.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * and some of the edits are very small and nuanced but they are injecting a bias into these articles. We need to clear all that junk out or police it heavilly. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a "clean slate" approach might be a good idea. I just posted a request.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

reply
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I replied to your most recent comment on the sandy hook conspiracy AFD. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks! I sincerely hope that the edits are a step toward a creating a neutral article and that they're also a good starting point for future improvement/expansion. Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

NRA page cleanup
Hi, wow, its a bit denuded, but I think that it was necessary given the circumstances. It will take a great deal of effort to add sufficient detail that could be corrupted in a similar manner. And as much as I am in favor of more detail in articles, I think the article is in good shape now. BTW, I haven't checked our help request over at the gun project lately. I've been offline for over a week or so.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So I've caught a few stray comments in the last day or so. Honestly, I didn't feel like tracing back to see who made them (good faith or not), I've just been rewording where it seemed prudent. I just did a stint of reference adding, updating, and correction to hopefully strengthen the article. Please let me know what you think. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! It's been a busy few months.  At least some of the other contentious pages that I edit have been thankfully somewhat quiet :-)-Justanonymous (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So sorry
This is by total accident I was using an anti-vandal tool that detects words that is commonly used by vandals for an example idiot or shit, or etc. I respect all view points and I am so soooooorry. Again I am so sorry. I did not even know it was a talk page. next time I will pay attention much more closely. I am sorry if I offended anyone. pls respond to my user page.--Liberalufp (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you much! :-) And keep fighting the vandals.  The barbarians are everywhere.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Kaul
I tend to agree with you. Not every journalist is notable (I have personally written over 2000 published articles and 5 books and would not say that I would rate a wiki article). I never heard of Kaul until he launched his personal attacks. I say delete.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Second Amendment to the Constitution".

{| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  03:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is quite the POV pushing... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's gone so far off the deep end that it's just pure revisionism. No place in the wiki for that kind of blantant POV pushing.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a comment in the Dispute resolution area, but its been hidden (collapsed) for the time being. I hope my point made sense.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good comment, we can bubble it out from where it is once the deliberations get going.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

100% agree
I agree with everything you said on your user page. I read wikipedia a lot but I havent edited much. My few experiences with trying to edit have been like pulling teeth. It's no longer about whether someone is correct or not. You don't need to be correct. You just need to be an admin and have a ton of admin friends. If you dont you will be ganged up on and have all sorts of "investigations" opened up on you. It also helps to selectively quote rules that most of the time contradict with another rule. I believe that wikipedia should ere on the side of having too much content and not too little, but it appears I can be overruled at will by people who think they own certain pages. I find it making me angrier and angrier and thinking its not worth the agravation. I also question how accurate certain articles can be with this kind of thought police enforcement. Lbrad2001 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Lbrad, you're preaching to the choir my friend. Couldn't agree more with your assessment. There are some exceptions and its those people that its best to align yourself with as well as to stay on their good side if that's the case. Even when Just and I don't completely agree with each other, we still understand about being fair and civil with each other. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you, it's tough going sometimes. Sometimes the only thing that makes it bearable is that there are some great, very high quality people here who really have a good sense that we're building something better and that we can write an objective encyclopedia.  That said, I wish there would be a way to rethink some of these contentious articles to eliminate a lot of the static out there, I truly think that 20% of our articles take up 80% of our attention to keep them straight.  Thank you both for being great wikipedians.  If I fall by the wayside, just know that I fell in battle and just leave me where I fell. Cheers! :-) -Justanonymous (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The part that's the most annoying is I start getting angry when a person starts bringing in all his buddies to team up on me. I try to defend myself, and revert the sentence that he just arbitraily deleted, and I get called out for violating the 3RR rule, and get called a SOCK, and get accused of making personal attacks. I'm just defending myself, but evidently that's not allowed. He however can violate the 3RR rule since he views my edit as vandalism. It's extreme arrogance. Basically what he's saying is that HE considers my post vandalism therefore he can do whatever he wants. It's like someone who trys to enforce the 10 commandments while he's breaking 9 of them and can break the 10th whenever it suits him. The nice part for me is I barely edit at all on here. So if he's succefull in getting me blocked I will fall in battle also, but I won't really care other than for the principle of the thing. lol Lbrad2001 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gun control
I did some editing and added a section, please let me know what you think? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it. I think its ready for Rfc -Justanonymous (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You may fire when ready, Gridley...! Personally, I think most of the "Arguements" section will have to be trashed. There's a lot of good info in it, but in its current state the article is just one huge posting board for the political debate of the moment. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Talk Page - discrepancies
Hey Just, I saw your proposal and commented. I think its great to discuss the situation, but in the long run I thin it would cause a problem in the article when someone comes along and doesn't realize that the section is about "wrong or misinformation" and then starts to "correct it". In one respect, its like we're acknowledging that the press is sloppy and messes up. We know they do and its caused no end of angst in just monitoring the article. But the new section seems like it would give validation to "bad reporting". I can only imagine how certain "difficult" editors might interpret this and then use it to justify any manner of edits.

Then again, maybe I'm just being overly cautious/paranoid... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I'm expecting the very vast majority of us to just say that we should replace the incorrect reporting, bad assumptions, etc with the most correct information that comes from WP:RS sources. I opened the discussion because one editor wanted to start calling out the discrepancies throughout the article and I was worried that would lead to a bad article or to an edit war.  I don't see much traction for a separate section unless there turns out to be some very glaring mireporting that is unique to this situation (which barring some big things there won't be).  Still, better to talk about it in the talk than wind up with an edit war.  The editor who brought it up leans towards the conspiratorial, which is cool when you're writing a script for a movie or a novel but generally doesn't have much place here.  He might get away with a section on the conspiracy page for Newtown....I might recommend that.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Even when we "disagree", we're usually in agreement on something... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms, Requesting your assistance...
Hey Just, as you are keenly aware, many of the gun and related articles are a mess. POV pushing, inconsistency, factual inaccuracy, lousy or no references, et. al. I've corresponded with the Coordinator of the Firearm Project to use the page to organize the overall efforts to clean up these articles and I'm hoping you'll be interested in joining in.

How this started was with a comparison of the Gun and Firearm articles and some of their derivatives like Gun, Firearm, History of the firearm, History of gunpowder, Gun powder, etc. There is no consistency in the use of definitions, references, or even entire History sections from article to article.

I'm going to ask others for their assistance, some of the usual suspects from the Sandy Hook, NRA, Wayne LaPierre articles and such. For the time being, we have the run of the Firearm Project page. Any effort you can contribute, however big or small, will be appreciated.

Please feel free to spread the word to others. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gun control
Hi, please see Gun control and Talk:Gun control. I decided to go ahead and be WP:BOLD. I restructured and rewrote the article according to some suggestions in the discussion. I snipped a LOT of excess arguing and POV violations, moved the authoritarianism section into history of gun control, and condensed some info into the Arguments section. The arguments section still needs some trimming/balancing. Feedback is appreciated. ROG5728 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

gun control DR
There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 1 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) 23:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

sigh
Sorry if I was snippy with you yesterday. I felt like you were being intentionally obtuse and ignoring the text from heller and the secondary sources to make a point, but I should have been giving more WP:AGF. I think we do agree with each other quite well as to way the 2A SHOULD BE interpreted, but until dominoes start to fall (crossed fingers) (or at least no new dominoes put up) that is not the way it is actually being applied today, and we should neutrally describe it though it disagrees with our personal convictions. But again, I apologize for not being more courteous in our discussions. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries here Gaijin42 and no apologies necessary. I respect you and the work you do tremendously.  I am being a bit obtuse but I think in the end I need better arguments and those might require more time and more decisions to be made. Let's keep up the good work.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism at gun control
Newsflash. Removing bullshit NRA propaganda from Wikipedia articles is not vandalism. Rather than throw around accusations that you know are bullshit, go talk to an administrator. Please go ahead and tell someone that I am vandalizing the gun control article. Start a thread at WP:ANI. Go ahead. You won't, because you know that you are full of it, and you know that you are spouting bullshit. Prove me wrong or shut up. &mdash; goethean 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Use profanity on my page again and you will lose the privilege and courtesy of using my talk page. You have been warned.  Your summary removal of 4,000+b of content that has been there for some time and added by established editors without first discussing and gaining consensus on talk is inappropriate.  Please don't vandalize the page.  Please be civil.  Please get consensus on the talk.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Enough warnings. Start a thread about my vandalism or STFU. &mdash; goethean 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't post on this page again. Your profanity is not welcome. If you do, I'll have to report you for personal harassment.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. ROG5728 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just want to let you know that you are completely undermining your argument on ANI by insisting that "bullshit" or "STFU" are profane. Because if that line of attack, your request for a ban extension will likely go nowhere - one really needs to understand the policies in play before requesting something like that - indeed, admins don't usually appreciate a jump right to a ban with weak proof  ES  &#38;L  14:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You guys decide what type of environment you want to build here. I will tell you that a lack of civility will. Likely lead to many of us frequenting the place and contributing less.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm all over incivility ... have a look at this essay of mine if you don't already know that. However, what you're calling incivility barely scratches the surface - especially when you pull things like "STFU" out of context and suddenly call it "bullying" - that's ridiculous rhetoric  ES  &#38;L  14:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * an editor block deletes a ton of content that he didn't like. I revert him.  He comes and dumps on my talk page a bunch of profanity laden garbage and then gets into a 50k fight on the article talk and on ani.  He's clearly disruptive and so is Andy.  But you guys do what you will.  Regarding the stfu comment and whether it's profane or not, Next time you're in front of a police officer you can experiment and tell him to stfu and see how that situation develops.  It was profane during Victorian times and it's profane today.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again: not profane. And to make your argument weaker: this is the written word, and has different impact than spoken.  If I say to a cop "STFU", it will depend on many things: tone of voice, body language, etc.  If I say "shut the fuck up", body language and tone makes little difference.  There's 2 reasons why people make acronyms on the internet: speed, and watering down the meaning.  ES  &#38;L  15:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We respectfully disagree. Let's leave it at that.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)