User talk:Scalhotrod/Archive 19

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Faye Reagan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Girls Gone Wild


 * Joanna Angel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Scrapper

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandy Hook article
I think you're being a bit unreasonable here, particularly since the initial edit you reverted treated the President's comment as a statement of fact. My edit clearly attributed it to him and added the NRA because he directed his comment at Republicans and the NRA. I think you should compare my initial edit to the version before. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite clearly you that being unreasonable. I removed the commentary entirely, no president's remarks, no parties, no NRA. The article is about the shooting and the section is about things related to gun control since the incident. What's unreasonable about keeping the political debate and rhetoric out of this artile? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire section is about commentary. It's the subsection under "Reactions" covering "Gun control". The push for more gun control (and resultant push against it) was perhaps the most prominent national reaction to Sandy Hook. The section opens with a direct quote from the President explaining his intentions, the body of the section contains quotes and reactions from various politicians and groups on both sides of the debate, and the closing covers the defeat of the only Bill that saw a vote at the national level, and quotes from both sides of the aisle, including the President. That's not just neutral, that's good writing, I think. The only part I took out was a single word that treated Obama's words as fact (and since he was criticizing Republicans and the NRA, that's clearly not neutral), and adding the NRA, since in the quote he specifically directs his criticism at both Republicans and the NRA.
 * I'm note sure what you're classifying as rhetoric, but your suggestion to keep politics out of a section specifically covering a political issue confuses me. If anything this section should cover legislative reaction to Sandy Hook (ie, new gun control laws in Colorado, New York, Maryland and Connecticut) in far more detail. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From my perspective you seem to be confusing rhetoric (and editorial) with facts. The President's remarks about the push for gun control are appropriate, his views on the parties regarding the legislation not going he wanted it to are not. Do you understand the difference? The comments invite other editorial opinion and that is not what the article is about, plain and simple. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable take, but I still disagree, largely because the president was the focal-point for gun control efforts, so when they failed it's reasonable to include his reaction. The section also includes analysis from the NRA and a reaction from a Republican lawmaker. Wikipedia can't endorse a specific viewpoint (as some of the editors on the talk page certainly did), but it can report the viewpoints of others. It's reasonable to believe that readers will agree with one and disagree with another, and as evidence I'll use another comment from the talk section from an editor who apparently felt the article unfairly represented the pro-gun rights side. As it stands I feel the article fairly covers both while endorsing neither. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI - it seems there have been some pretty drastic changes to the article over the past 48 hours. I've made my opinions known and will now likely recuse myself of further edits, outside reverting vandalism and keeping an eye on the conspiracy theory article. Thanks for your time, and I'm sorry you and I could not come to a consensus. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but...

 * Although I truly appreciate your efforts in saving articles for notable pornographic actors and actresses, I'm afraid you might be a little confused about WP:PORNBIO. If pornography is all a certain actor/actress is known for, s/he isn't automatically notable if s/he won any porn award (group and scene-related awards don't qualify, although they did in the past). Of course, there are exceptions when the actor is also notable elsewhere; for example, Raven Rockette is still notable because she also did some mainstream work.


 * Have a nice day. :)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Circa the end of January when the edit you're referring to was made, I'd have to say that many of us were "confused" regarding the PORNBIO guidelines. I'm not sure of when I became aware of the "scene awards don't qualify" exception, but I am now. I realize that we, for the most part, are trying to work together for the betterment of the site, but a lot has happened with the Porn guidelines in the last few months. Even I'll admit that there are more than a few articles that should have never been created to begin with. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant Talk Page
Talk:US_Airways Already started a discussion on it. Let's hope it won't get removed again. But I won't hold my breath. Tutelary (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When I saw that articles about what happened and the fact that their Twitter page was outranking their home page and the Wikipedia article, I knew that this was no ordinary incident. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Gina Lynn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Belladonna


 * Melissa Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Paul Thomas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear you
I've been staying away from that article for the most part as it is a complete mess, but I almost threw an "Essay" tag on it last night because that's how it reads. Thanks for taking the initiative to fix it. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I also clarified the NFA/GCA verbiage as it was focused just on machine guns which we know was not the intention. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michaëlle Jean
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michaëlle Jean. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tanya Hyde, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and AFD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation
There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page. Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

revert
I only meant to revert that last change, not the one before. Sorry. I have re-implemented your prior edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to and Scalhotrod  on that, I am not taking a stand either way on the numeral change, I just didn't mean to revert that, so I undid my own change.  I shouldn't be counted toward consensus either way on that point. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for letting me know. BTW, I reverted the restoration of the appointment. The source cited makes no connection to the Sandy Hook incident. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)