User talk:Kcmastrpc

Revert
Just take it easy with reverting. It's considered rude. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of policy surrounding talk page reversions, thanks. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You are advised to WP:AGF and err for the side of caution. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:AAGF; if you think my revert was disruptive, feel free to take it to a noticeboard. Otherwise, if you have something to discuss on the talk page of which the revert occurred, feel free to post something of substance regarding the content vs opening a section, completely out of the blue, that appears to have had no practical purpose other than to make commentary regarding a policy on reliable sources. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Not helpful
This - while I am always grateful for other users' moderation, as I said, actual discussion is not bludgeoning. And there's no good reason to effectively support the side of one guy and either his sock or mate who have provoked half my response volume by having a go at me out of the blue. Endorsing the idea that harassing a user for wanting to discuss is okay, is not helpful. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider your warning understood, but again, look at the actual comments not just the number. Determine which users are contributing to discussion (that is being positively welcomed by the intended users, natch) and which users are not progressing discussion (while harassing and mischaracterising if not insulting). It doesn’t sit well with me that I am genuinely contributing - and, as said, the users I actually replied to have happily participated - but when some uninvolved user takes issue, I have to just let them attack, stalk and misrepresent me or get in trouble for telling them to piss off? Nobody wants to get involved in off-topic fights about who’s editing better, but it doesn’t sit well that defending oneself isn’t tolerated. Kingsif (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the level-headed response. One approach to consider might be to amend your response in a RFC by replying to yourself tagging specific users whose argument you're seeking to discuss. This is similar to how many editors will handle discussions at arbitration, as this has the benefit of keeping their responses within an arbitrary word limit, while also helping the OP gauge how much weight they're adding to a discussion.
 * It's easy to get carried away and in many cases, WP:BLUDGEON is a real phenomenon where the weight of your arguments are likely to be greatly diminished by the editor who closes the RFC. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, you say that having asked users to stop harassing me doesn’t take away their right to participate in discussion. Of course it doesn’t, and you’ll see I haven’t took issue with their other contributions. But when they make comments that do not - and are clearly not intended to - contribute to discussion, but are just to continue harassing me, those comments surely cannot be considered reasonable. Remember I have the right to participate, and there are only off-topic comments because some guy I wasn’t even replying to, decided I shouldn’t. Maybe warn them about that. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course you have a right to participate, but keep in mind that if multiple editors are suggesting to WP:DROPTHESTICK it might be a wise course to step back, reevaluate, and involve a third-party via noticeboard if you feel that you're being harassed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (To both replies) Look, I feel I’ve been level-headed this whole time except for a reply, that I’ve already acknowledged as ill-judged, pointing out a sockpuppet investigation. In that RfC there are many times other users have spun out discussions from others’ comments, and I truly don’t think anyone would look on my replies even the least bit negatively if not for the fact one (maybe two) users have inexplicably taken issue with (only) me doing so right from the first time I did it (i.e. they couldn’t have pattern/STICK complaints at that point, but still insulted me).
 * And I really don’t even have a STICK to drop in terms of the actual RfC (separate issue with an uninvolved user painting me the villain before the people I respond to have even had a chance to reply) but it seems clear that any contributions will be met with some non-productive, rudely written, “you’ve replied again” comment. If it’s hostile for me to contribute, how am I supposed to. Kingsif (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have any advice to offer here other than I've learned that replying more than a few different editors in any given RFC has a high probability of drawing the ire of other editors, doubly so when it's a controversial subject. I took particular interest in this RfC because I'm generally opposed to stuffing lead sentences with highly controversial labels, per MOS:LABEL. Sock investigations aside, if a user has a pattern of disruptive behavior there are other remedies vs. clogging up the RFC discussion thread with behavioral arguments (not saying this happened here, because I'm mostly concerned with the volume of responses you've made vs. the content) and that's something I'd almost certainly take the time to more closely examine before deciding to take anyone to a noticeboard. Would it be OK if we close this discussion up? I have to get back to work. :) Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The repeated accusations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS towards me
I don't know if this is a proper way to approach this, but multiple times on the Talk page for the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump article you have accused me of engaging in original research and acting in lieu of reliable sources in spite of me attempting to add information from reliable sources. I know as Wikipedians we are meant to put our personal feelings aside but this is really starting to bother me.

Template:Mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s: "I’ve removed the references as it’s not supported by RS and is blatant NPOV. Multiple editors have disagreed so I recommend finding WP:ONUS before reintroducing."

"These categories have been added again, despite this not being widely described as such by WP:RS, an actual comment in the article cat section, and there not being consensus for their inclusion. Could another editor please remove per WP:ONUS as I don't want to end up at ANI for edit warring."

Not a mass shooting: "Consider opening an RFC, multiple editors have disputed this, there are scant reliable sources on describing this event as such, and WP:ONUS is clear here." "Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn’t conduct original research per WP:OR. This discussion is spread across multiple sections so please collapse and redirect to the RFC if you decide to open one."

Should Ronny Jackson's nephew be included in the injury count?: Do you have RS to support the updated injury counts? I don’t understand what’s so difficult with the policy concerning WP:OR. Wikipedia editors aren’t here to speculate or do our own WP:OR. If WP:RS are updating casualty / injury counts then we can update ours based on those reliable sources as well.

Let me address each accusation. In regards to the first two about the attack being categorized as a mass shooting, I was attempting to do this in accordance to our own article on mass shootings and as is mentioned on that article there are many definitions of a mass shooting, but two respectable sources such as Mass Shooting Tracker and Gun Violence Archive, which are also mentioned in the article have categorized it as such. It feels to me as if you're ignoring that. Additionally, the purpose of a category, which is one of the things I was trying to add to the article, is to "group together pages on similar subjects". If two reliable sources that are included on the Wikipedia page about mass shootings and what classifies something as such, say it is a mass shooting, then why shouldn't the relevant mass shooting categories be added? And about the template, that is just to help with navigation and it along with the categories are very subtly located at the bottom of the page.

As for the last one, I was referencing something that has been included in the article for at least 24 hours now and has respectable sources such as Politico and the Texas Tribune. Also, I mentioned the possibility of Jackson lying simply because public figures sometimes lie, but as far as I can tell there has been no dispute about Jackson's claim about his nephew being injured.

Please do not take this as an attack on you, but I just felt that it needed to be addressed. Raskuly (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I apologize that my policy arguments were somewhat vague, however, please don't take my arguments about policy personally, they aren't an attack on you or your contributions to Wikipedia. I appreciate all the editors here and the time they volunteer to this effort. This includes you!
 * Allow me to address some of the points you've raised:
 * two respectable sources such as Mass Shooting Tracker and Gun Violence Archive, which are also mentioned in the article have categorized it as such. -- This is probably the strongest argument for inclusion; however, Wikipedia must also take into account the WP:WEIGHT of these sources against almost every WP:RS covering this topic not reporting this event as a mass shooting. Doing so could be considered WP:UNDUE. It also seems that several editors have also agreed with this rationale.
 * then why shouldn't the relevant mass shooting categories be added per WP:CATDEF, which states A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to suggests we shouldn't use this, because reliable sources do not commonly and consistently refer to this event as a Mass shooting. Additionally, you'll see in the footnote for that particular policy: in declarative statements, rather than table or list form suggests the two sources you've mentioned above would further disqualify the inclusion as a category. I'd also refer to the editing guideline regarding categories which states, A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
 * no dispute about Jackson's claim about his nephew being injured I've explained on the article talk page why I believe Wikipedia shouldn't be WP:SYNTHing numbers based on all the various different reports of injuries and so on. I'm not going to comment on this further, because I honestly believe the points made above clearly lay out why we shouldn't be introducing Mass shooting as a category (or in the infobox).
 * I'll raise another point too, with regards to the article we have on Wikipedia for Mass shooting. Besides the issues I have personally with how ambiguous the definition of a Mass shooting has become, a reading of it suggests that violence perpetrated as a means to and end is often excluded, eg: ... while excluding violence committed as a means to an end, such as robbery or terrorism. The FBI now investigating this as an act of domestic terrorism (which is also mentioned in the lead of the DJT assassination article).
 * I'll close this out with respectfully suggesting you consider WP:DROPTHESTICK with regards to the matter or, alternatively, just open an RFC; however, I believe the arguments above are very strong and as such any WP:RFC attempt would be unsuccessful. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to drop the stick. I've never really engaged to a notable degree in an article that is remotely as "popular" as this one–this is insane to me–and its been too much for me. I felt like I was being driven crazy by a mix of editors with ill intention and normal editors such as yourself. Feel free to revert my edits in relation to casualties if you believe it would be appropriate, other than the mention of the officer who confronted Crooks after he pointed his rifle at him hurting his ankle in the body of the article since I strongly believe that should remain in that sense, though if you think it is inappropriate to include him in the total injury count in the infobox that is up to you. Raskuly (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have very strong feelings about the injury totals, even though I still believe editors attempting to WP:SYNTH such figures has issues because of the WP:BREAKING aspect of this event. My concerns were mostly based on using these totals to further an argument towards the categorization.
 * I applaud you for entering the fray, as doing so is the only way to gain experience at Wikipedia; and would encourage you to continue doing so. I also appreciate your patience with me and hearing out my arguments. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Read wp:agf and wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur; @Raskuly it's probably best if you just retract your comments regarding Slater. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Raskuly (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)