User talk:Sickoflies

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Neutral point of view
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy regarding content. Please make sure the edits you make reflect this. In particular, this edit is not neutral- who says th policies they support are reasonable? Who says they "vigorously" defend constitutional rights? Friday (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

When other editors disagree with your edits enough to remove them, don't just put them back. We have a talk page for discussing article content. Friday (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article can't just say things like "..so that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of this crucial and historic liberty." Calling the right to bear arms a crucial liberty is not remotely neutral. If you're going to use the AHSA's own words, you have to indicate that they are their own words. Friday (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Friday - I changed any bias speak on the page and am working to make it very factual and reference third-party articles that discuss the AHSA. In an effort to remain fair, we are keeping the NRA's criticism of AHSA and not remove it. What we do mind is having it in the descriptive intro paragraph as to what the organization is about. That goes against the Wiki format nor is it "neutral". I would also like to point out the criticism you site mostly ome from the NRA's own website and rarely from third party sources not directly affiliated with the NRA. Again, not neutral. Sickoflies


 * The key is being clear on who said what. We cannot say "AHSA is a gun control organization in disguise", but we can say "So-and-so claims AHSA is a gun control organization in disguise" as long as we have it properly sourced.  Also, the article shouldn't probably focus much on the things AHSA says they're working on, if there is no third-party info available about this.  Friday (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe criticism should be in a section noted as such and not in the intro paragraph - period. I have already agreed with you that allowing criticism - not matter the source - makes for a much more neutral wiki def. Inflammatory remarks/criticism against AHSA should be in a section designated for such.  I believe my edits are more on point, based on actual facts than what you keep changing it to - NRA rhetoric.  And the fact that you claim your edits are neutral is ridiculous.  Complaints has been made regarding your edits to this page and Wiki has generated a case # and is investigating it currently.  We will continue to pursue the removal of these slanted edits (edits slanted in the NRA's favor) without rest.  If you would like to discuss this in a reasonable manner - I am all for it. Sickoflies


 * You're with the AHSA? You probably shouldn't be editing the article at all in that case, see Conflict of interest.  Not sure what edits of mine you're talking about- all I did was revert the major changes you made with no discussion, since they weren't very neutral.  See my note on the talk page.  Friday (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not with AHSA - just a believer in what they are doing. If you are not the one that created this page, then my apologies.  You should know that right-wing NRA crazies are trying to confuse the public about the mission of AHSA, and discredit them in any way they can.  So, when I saw that you were reverting it back to that version, I assumed it was you who created it.  I hope you give me a chance to make this a great Wiki entry - making it comprehensive and balanced.  In my opinion, it is worlds more accurate and honest in my version than it was and I am continuing over the next several days to make it even better.   Sickoflies

Take it easy
You've been doing what we call "edit warring", and you need to stop. If someone disagrees with your changes, don't just keep reverting back to the version you like. Stop and talk things over on the talk page. Also, you must stop cutting and pasting in content from websites- Wikipedia is free content, and we can't just grab copyrighted material. Also, you keep asserting that the content is "biased and inflammatory" but you have failed to explain how or why when asked. These behaviors are not acceptable from any editor on Wikipedia- here, we require cooperation between editors. Friday (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, why, Friday are you reverting the very minor change I just made. The inflammatory information is in the Intro paragraph in particular "Its critics describe it as a front organization whose real goal is the elimination of the rights of private gun owners by driving a wedge into the gun rights movement and by misrepresenting issues in commercials and advertisements." This is biased, ridiculous and unsupported. I want to remove this. The other information I am trying to remove is old info about its leadership that no longer applies. I then want to add info about their brief history which is sited and not biased. Do you think these edits are fair? --Sickoflies 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The intro sentence should be better sourced. Which critics describe it this way, and how do we know?  I've removed the offending sentence for now and tried to replace it with something better supported by the sourced current in the article. The reason I reverted your change was that you took out the info on Rosenthal with no explanation.  If you're going to remove sourced info, you need a good reason for it.  Also, I gotta admit here, you came in with a new account, you let your biases show, and you immediately started making problematic edits to a controversial article.  So, I imagine many other editors than just me are going to be viewing your actions with a critical eye.  But, we should discuss article content on the article talk page. Friday (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Friday - here is what I want to do and why: 1) remove "Its critics assert that the group may be untrustworthy, citing previous involvement in gun control groups by some of the leaders of the organization." from the intro - the only people who say this are affiliated with the NRA who dislike AHSA and though it may be cited in their literature does not make it worthy of referencing here for that reason. 2) Remove Rosenthal from the leadership listing - he is no longer with the organization.  3) Add a few links to the bottom to articles that are favorable to the organization to balance out the ones that are unfavorable.   Would you agree that those edits make the article more credible, balanced and less inflammatory and less slanted towards their critics favor?--Sickoflies 03:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)