User talk:Scalhotrod/Archive 20

Why?
The original percentages in numerals were MOS compliant. Why do you insist on spelling them out? Lightbreather (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple, words force the reader to actually read the text in its context and not just skim it. It actually helps to convey the information in a cohesive manner. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to whom? I follow the AP Styleguide and it say no such thing. Lightbreather (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I follow my experience from twenty-five years of editing, then again I'm just as capable of writing crap as anyone. I'm also in favor on not dumbing down articles to a 5th grade reader level like most newspapers. If you choose to use a writing guide, that's your prerogative. Please don't be upset when others do not wish to have it inflicted on them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That reply was a bit harsh. Wikipedia follows std style rules unless there's an agreement on an exception. You have 3 Rs on Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, I think. I hope you'll let it go. Lightbreather (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any perception of harshness is entirely in your interpretation. Please own up to that and stop blaming others for how you feel. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, wikipedia follows wikipedia's style guide. AP is a nice guide, but it has no relevance to the wiki. Both forms are allowed in MOS:NUMERAL and this is an item that will just have to be dealt with via consensus. But to both of you, aren't there real issues where our energy is better spent than bickering over what format we put numbers in? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:MOS:
 * Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
 * The 2nd and final sentences apply especially here, I think. Lightbreather (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct, you're the one that took offense by the change and reverted it. If you're going to cite a policy that allows for both styles and then state that "Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable", then this perceived problem is entirely your creation. I'm not the one that others have accused of OWNERSHIP and this kind of behavior is an example of that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I fear on this issue, I think LB has the better of you. Between the bit quoted above, and WP:STATUSQUO the onus would be on you to develop a consensus to change. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's understandable stance, but the fault here still lies with LB for reverting the change. If its truly an optional style, then it should not have mattered, but it did and now she's defending it. That's a pretty straightforward indication of WP:OWNERSHIP. I made a change, LB made an "issue" out of it. We would not be having this discussion if it were not the case. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." More than one style is acceptable. You changed from the one that was already used to another, without giving a good reason. You gave your reason, after I asked you here, but it doesn't sync with what journalists and other writers are taught. But please, let's let it go - especially the character stuff. Lightbreather (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia" do you not get? Since when are journalists or other writers taught to write for encyclopedias? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that trained writers, including those that write for encyclopedias, use style guides. Here is a link to an Encyclopedia Britannica article:
 * Assault Weapons: Year in Review 2013. Do they spell out numbers over nine, or use numerals? Lightbreather (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice example, is the horse sufficiently dead or would you like to beat it more? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=606120931 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F606120931%7CGun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting%5D%5D Ask for help])

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) 00:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gun politics in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Spitzer (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) 08:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning
Your recent editing history at Gun politics in the United States‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Cwobeel (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're not on the side of the train riders, so they will do everything they can to fuck with you and eventually block or ban you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Trains...?! Cool, I love trains... :) I'm not worried in the slightest. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not either, apparently some button clicker who never heard the F word thinks I'm a dirty whore because I used it once and has to keep mentioning it everytime his action's are questioned, but if I was a cowardly limey nancy boy who said it in every other sentence that would be ok, because as long as you're on their side of the atlantic ocean or political aisle profanity is not uncivil.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Heads up
You made a series of nine big edits on the GPUS article. Some of them I liked, some of them I have no strong opinion about one way or another, some I disagree with. Some of your edit summaries were complete and accurate; some were not. I am going to make a series of edits, too. Just a heads up, and let's take it easy with each other on any edit summaries or talk-page comments, OK? Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Works for me... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning
Your recent editing history at Assault weapons ban shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * To quote you from Mike's page, Hey Pot, how's its going? From, the Kettle. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW: I believe that you're quoting Mike from my page: Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If the shoe fits... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Explanation
Could you please explain your most resent revert at Gun politics in the United States‎‎ at the talk page there. As mentioned at the policy you pointed too isn't about establishing notability for people who are sourced, it is about establishing notability for articles. Notice, your at your third revert. Thenub314 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Between you and Lightbreather, I'm not sure who made the edit, but the material was removed because the notability of the people making the editorial statements was not established. None of them have WP articles, so they are not WP:NOTABLE (or WP:PEOPLE if you prefer) in that regard. Listing a bunch of names and then saying effectively "these random people agree on this, so it must be true" does not work on Wikipedia. Are any of them worthy of articles on their own? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You have your policy mixed up. See WP:Reliable Sources for a guideline as to which sources should be used for citation.  WP:NOTABLE is just not at issue.  These are Books and Journal Articles referencing the effects of various events on the gun politics in the US, how are they no appropriate?  Do you mean to tell me if I check back at ever reference you've added, the author's will all have a WP page, and if they don't I am free to remove the insufficiently referenced material?  Thenub314 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop deleting this sourced material from the GPUS article. (This is the diff:, with edit summary, "Switching to non-controversial source and removing redundant content again per WP:MOS")

First, I disagree that OpenSecrets.org is controversial. Second, even if it were (for argument's sake), there is no policy that says controversial sources cannot be used. Third, the material you keep replacing this with is sourced with an OK source, but it pre-dates Super PACs. Fourth, your preferred source is included with the one you don't like in the material you keep deleting (in case you didn't notice). And fifth - I explained all of this in the GPUS discussion of just one month ago Presenting OpenSecrets.org figures - and the material stayed. Please add something if you think it will improve the article, but deleting this material does not improve the article, so please stop. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Disagree all you want, others have commented that its editorial material is suspect. 2) Yes there is and there is policy that gives preference to established and especially print sources. 3) I've deleting redundant material that is meant to be supplemented by Wikilinks and their related articles. Please stop "dumbing down" the article. 4) The source is fine for factual material, you should be happy I'm using it at all. 5) Your explanation does not override policy or consensus of which there was no consensus and the lack of it does not justify your edits. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I disagree that OpenSecrets is a "controversial" source (though some, like the NRA, might call it biased), but could you please provide the 1. The policy that says controversial (or biased) sources cannot be used, and 2. The policy that gives preference to print sources? Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A completely agnostic policy elucidation, unrelated to any article or topic
A completely agnostic policy elucidation, unrelated to any article or topic, may be of interest to you

Guide_to_layout "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Gaijin42 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought... thanks! Admittedly, I do tend to forget about the suggestion of annotations. That could probably prevent quite a bit of angst. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , considering that Scal is edit warring with me and at least one other editor (refer, for instance, to the previous six discussions here) on the Gun politics in the U.S. article and the Assault weapons ban article - which he has unilaterally moved/renamed to/as "Assault weapons legislation" - why are you advising him on policy that is directly to-do with some of the reverts and the move/rename he did today. This may be OK by the letter of your topic ban, but I can't see how it's OK within the spirit of the ban. Lightbreather (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for the message, but I was already aware of it and had mentioned it in the ANI. The 3rd User involved in the activity, Lightbreather, is the one who most importantly needs to be reminded of this. Its in response predominantly to her edits and actions that I've made many of my edits. Also, what was resolved or discussed in any productive way in ANI? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice
I have asked for clarification re: Gaijin42's topic ban here: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control.23Gaijin42_.28topic_banned.29"

The request is to-do with a discussion he posted here on your talk page yesterday. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)