User talk:Saltforkgunman

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 19:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC) I enjoy reading Wikipedia and I will be able to add to a lot of articles.Please contact me if you wish to talk.Saltforkgunman 03:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Evolution
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Jpowell 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course not. It would take more than a few words to do that. May I suggest you do some reading about what constitutes a scientific theory. --Jpowell 00:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record,the spluttering indignation above was brought on by one sentance,"Evolution is an unproven theory."Saltforkgunman 05:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Interview Request
Hi, I'm a reporter with Governing Magazine, doing a piece on the Wikipedia profiles of Governors and Mayors. I see you've been active on Gov. Sebelius' page and Gov. Blagojevich's page this week. I'd love to talk, if you'd drop me a line.

Chris Swope (cswope@governing.com)

Citations please
Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. I've noticed your edits to the Ann Richards and Richard M. Daley articles. Thanks for your contributions. I have added a request that you cite sources to verify some of the information you added to those two articles. Thanks again for your contributions, and please let me know if you have any questions or I can help you get used to editing Wikipedia. TMS63112 16:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Thanks for leaving me a note and thanks for continuing to contribute to Wikipedia.  I'll try to address the various issues you raise.  I took a look at your edits on the Neuschwanstein castle article.  (I had really hoped to visit there while I was in Germany, but didn't get a chance to!)  Your edits seemed to be a first person account of what you enjoyed on your visit.  Edits like that might be more appropriate on your user page (where I have my list of places I have visited) rather than in an article about the place itself.  Please remember that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a travel guide or a journal.  It can be very useful to edit articles about places you have visited or are familiar with, but always try to keep your edits encyclopedic in tone.
 * It seems like you had a difference of opinion with another editor on the K-Mart article. Unless someone is making edits in bad faith or is deliberately vandalising an article it is hard to "keep them away" as you suggest.  Most editors here are pretty reasonable, and are just trying to keep the articles factual, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic.  If you have a disagreement with someone about a specific edit, leave a note on the articles talk page, or on the user's talk page.  Usually, you can reach some sort of compromise that everyone can live with.  Citing sources makes reaching acceptable language so much easier.  For example, can you find a newspaper article that reports on K-Mark stopping gun sales and/or the reaction from gun owners?  If it is online, you can post a link to it by copying the URL and placing it in single brackets.  It works like this .  Then readers and editors can follow the link to a source that verifies the information.  One final item.  Please leve notes for me on my talk page, rather than my user page.   That way, I'll get the message bar showing that I have new messages and will be able to respond more quickly.  Thanks!  TMS63112 17:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Stephen King deletion
Hello. Thanks for the note on my talk page regarding the reversions of your additions to the Stephen King biography.

I agree with you that Stephen makes errors when it comes to accuracy of the depiction of firearms in his stories. That has no relevance in a biographic entry about an author, however. It is just as irrelevant to state that he erronously describes the color of Nike shoes or that he describes amplitude modulation wrong in three stories... None of this is relevant in a biographical entry. It has nothing to do with politics. In fact I was trained by law enforcement officers in weapons handling for motion pictures and am very savvy when it comes to firearms of many kinds. Your comment was an interesting note to make, but it has no place here. Perhaps you can start an article on firearm inacurracies presented in modern media? That would actually be a very interesting article. The obvious entries would be talking about "endless" ammo in Hollywood weapons, the endless need to cock weapons in movies - especially semi automatics that have already been fired in the same scene. It could be a very interesting article. My deletions had nothing to do with politics or any personal attack. It was merely good editing. All the best LACameraman 09:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Evolution
I noticed your edit to Evolution. You’re right that it hasn’t been “proven,” but nothing in science can really be proven. Einstein’s theory of relativity has not been proven, nor has quantum mechanics. All we can do is to say that the hypothesis fits the observed data extremely well, that every piece of evidence so far gathered supports the hypothesis, and there are no alternative explanations that better fit the data. Adding that statement to the beginning of the article, aside from being obviously misplaced, is not helpful, since the article discusses the matter in far more sophistication later on. Hope this helps, and please ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Now this was nice.Saltforkgunman 07:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill 418
I removed the word "again" in your edit from the article about Kathleen Sebelius vetoing the bill. You placed the fact so far down in the article from her stance on gun laws that I was not certain whether she vetoed the gun law referred to early in the article again or to another law not mentioned previously again. I moved the sentence to the appropriate paragraph and ask you to clarify. Thanks. Angrynight 15:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff I've contributed to.
Kathleen Sebelius Rod Blagojevich Paul Wellstone Weyerhaeuser Gun politics in the United States Granada War Relocation Center Schindler's List Johnny Ringo Bob Taft Bob Holden Neuschwanstein The Plain Dealer {newspaper}

Question
I can't remember for the life of me the name of the preservative guns are transported in. I remember it is a waxy yellow substance that needs to be removed before the gun can be used, I think it starts with a "p" but the name eludes me. I thought you might have some idea- given the name- Thanks. Angrynight 03:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Cosmoline is the only gun preservative that I know of.Saltforkgunman 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that was it. I don't know why I thought it started with a "p" -Thanks Angrynight 12:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, racially motivated edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a word for this kind of stuff.The word is Orwellian.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. - Removal of content from a talk page without valid justification is considered to be vandalism. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Saltforkgunman-If you would learn to read, those comments were not mine, but Wikipedia is not your personal blog, and it is vandalism to remove the valid comments of others. Holding the United States accountable for its misdeeds is not the same as hatred of the United States. If you keep going as you're going, and do not play well with others, don't be surprised when you are blocked. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that wikipedia is an appropriate forum to hold the United States accountable for it's actions.It reads like hatred to me.I asked you not to threaten me.

AfD nomination of Battle Of Jakes' Better Business Forms
I have nominated Battle Of Jakes' Better Business Forms, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Battle Of Jakes' Better Business Forms. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rnb (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to crowd the AfD page with more comments, so I'm writing here. Basically, I just wanted to say that I'm the last person who would nominate an article for political reasons, especially the politics in the article you wrote, so I hope you don't think that is the reasoning here.  Secondly, part of the reason I nominated it for deletion was because I'm not clear on the notability requirements for online fiction, so I thought other people looking at it might have a better idea than I do as to whether or not it's appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Finally, if you can cite sources that say that thousands of people have read about it or care about it, that might be enough to establish notability (although, it might not, as I said I'm hazy on the details).  But if it's just a story and all we have to go on is one person saying a lot of people care about it, that's not going to be enough, because anyone can make that claim about any story and we'd have to include it.  I know you're familiar with Wikipedia, so not all of this is new, but I wanted to give you my reasoning on AfDing your article.  Rnb (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Peace, RnB. I'll try to keep cool about this.Saltforkgunman (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Matter of fact, if you enjoy this kind of fiction, read Unintended Consequences, by John Ross.

Reply
"Did you use your administrator powers to blacklist the hyperlink to the story?" I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If the link has been blacklisted, you'll have to ask the administrator who blacklisted as to their reasoning.

The relation you've illustrated sounds like original research (something that shouldn't be included). Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated that this is a reliable, notable external link in any way, since it's a forum. Links to forums are generally not allowed, except in rare cases.

You may also wish to review the rules on assuming good faith, since you seem to have a problem with doing that. The conspiracies you appear to be imagining are probably just that. Natalie (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)