User talk:Trblmkr1

January 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hello Trblmkr1, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SudoGhost 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Eye snore  21:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Trblmkr1 reported by User:Ryan Vesey (Result: ). Thank you. Ryan Vesey 21:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on the article AR-15 in that you have made a series of reverts. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Be sure to read up on WP:3RR carefully before making any further edits, there is already an edit warring report filed at the noticeboard referenced above. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Elockid  ( Talk ) 21:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Trblmkr1. You are not wrong in wanting to contribute to Wikipedia and attempting to add content to the AR-15 article.  The biggest problem by far with your initial edits is your attempt to repeatedly override (revert) other editors objecting to and removing the content you wanted to add, violating WP:3RR.  The 3RR (Three Revert Rule) is considered a bright-line rule; it tends to get an editor blocked very quickly once they exceed it.  In your case, you went way past the red line by reverting nine times in approximately 26 hours.  Use these links to confirm it for yourself:  Initial Edit, then 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th reverts.  If you want an administrator to seriously consider unblocking you before the time limit expires (24 hours in this case), you'll need to make it clear that you didn't understand the 3RR rule, accept responsibility for violating it, and make sincere guarantees that you'll refrain from repeat-reversion in the future.  Take note that 3RR doesn't contain exceptions for editors who think they are "right" about whatever the content of the edit is; you can be "right" and still be edit warring.  Then, once unblocked, go to the article's Talk Page and talk it out with other editors to collaborate (even if your views differ) and find an acceptable compromise.  This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work; you may also want to read the WP:BRD essay for more thoughts on that process.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you also explain your choice of username which, while not actually against policy, is inevitably going to focus attention on your edits? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bald quotations
Hi. :) I was asked to weigh in on the copyright issues here, as I work a lot in this area. I think the confusion is not that you were using too much content, but that your use was not really transformative. We do permit and even encourage appropriate quotations, but in accordance with policy and guideline on non-free content, such material needs to be used defensibly - "to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." We can't copy content from other sources, even if we mark it as a quotation, just because we want the information. There must be a reason for us to use the precise words. Frequently even writing it so that we do use in text attribution helps make the reason for the quote more clear. For example, you might write: "On January 27 2013, a The New York Times piece singled out the gun, which 'has been aggressively marketed as a cool and powerful step up from more traditional target and hunting rifles', as contributing by its use in the recent mass shootings in Newton, Connecticut, Aurora, Colorado and Webster, New York to calls for tighter gun restrictions, noting that it 'is among the guns included in a proposed ban on a range of semiautomatic weapons that was introduced in the Senate last week.'"

This attributes claims about aggressive marketing to their source, which makes our reason for using their words clear. It's not that we're claiming their language as our own; we're telling people what they think...and who thinks it.

That said, it's a little hard to defend that we'd need to use their precise language to explain that its use may be banned. We can certainly summarize that in our own words, as it isn't a point of view or opinion. It's just straightforward fact. So we might instead that passage something like: "noting that the US Senate is considered a ban of the gun, along with a number of other semiautomatic weapons." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate history edit in AR-15 entry
I have changed my previous edit, scrubbing it of any opinion, changing it from a quote to my own words, and citing my source.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory information
Your reintroduction of the material in the history section was problematic. Editors on the talk page expressed a non-copyvio related reason to remove the information and you should discuss it there first. Adding on to that, you removed a list of manufacturers stating that they don't create AR-15's. You can't remove that list and claim an AR-15 was used in Sandy Hook at the same time as the gun used in Sandy Hook was not a Colt Industries AR-15, it was a Bushmaster XM-15. As such, I'm restoring the list of manufacturers, I'll leave your initial edit for someone else to deal with if they see fit; although, I suggest you make your way over to the talk page. Ryan Vesey 15:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me why you have posted on my talk page. My only involvement with you is an edit relating to your username, which is a contraction of "troublemaker". Is it your intention to live up to this name? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at AR-15. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15&diff=prev&oldid=535405780 (1/28)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15&diff=prev&oldid=535696424
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15&diff=prev&oldid=535707992
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15&diff=prev&oldid=535711530

Consensus was sought and acheived. In my most humble opinion, this is a power trip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trblmkr1 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 30 January 2013‎

I accept my penalty but it is my strong suspicion that groups of editors are acting in concert to keep the AR-15 wiki page devoid of anything that might have the slightest chance of putting it or its manufacturer in a negative light. If you look closely at the pattern of reverts after my initial effort you'll see just how rapidly my edits were taken down by ostensibly various editors for numerous, quite flimsy, reasons. This kind of corporate-sponsored editing is probably taking place on numerous pages and that is a shame. Trblmkr1 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh. Right-wing fanatics say Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. Left-wing fanatics say Wikipedia has a right-wing bias. Gun nuts think antigun fanatics rule Wikipedia. Gun haters think the NRA rules Wikipedia. Anti-semites think Jews run Wikipedia. Neutrality is what rules Wikipedia, plain and simple. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall writing anything about who does or does not rule all of WP but in the case of this page and probably some others who seems to "rule" is the person with the most friends to help carry out multiple reverts. As a result of preserving this sacrosanct "neutrality" a historical fact about the AR-15 is being kept out of the "History" section of same. Meh, indeed! Trblmkr1 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Working with editing disputes
Hi. I don't usually hang out for this kind of thing (there's quite enough for me to do in copyright work), but per your note at my talk page took a look and wanted to help if I can. If this advice is unneeded or unwelcome, please excuse the intrusion and feel free (of course) to remove it. :)

I am speaking to the principle here and not to any particulars. I have no experience to speak of with guns and know very little about them. (I do know some of the editors involved in that article and at least in my interactions have every reason to believe they're operating in good faith. That doesn't mean they're necessarily right about any given issue. I operate in good faith but am occasionally wrong. :D)

So, to the principle: It is always important to approach article editing from a spirit of cooperation and with the assumption of good faith. Not only does this make Wikipedia work better, but it honestly is self-serving as well. When you work nicely with others, they are more inclined to work nicely with you. And bystanders are more inclined to be open-minded in reading your thoughts. It's really a win all the way around.

If you encounter opposition, the first thing to do is always to consider if perhaps you are wrong. If you really don't think so, you need to pursue dispute resolution processes properly. Sometimes this means that important content - or even content you think is mistaken - must remain in an article for a day or two while you work it out with other editors. If the talk page of the article doesn't convince those who disagree that you are right or convince you that they are, you can neutrally reach out to the wider community for additional opinions, as long as you do see in the manner described in the dispute resolution policy. This is important because sometimes articles are "protected" by a group with a particular POV. But we need to carefully balance the right to appeal to uninvolved editors to help achieve consensus with the need to avoid "canvassing" for support or some form of "asking the other parent". You always need to do a gut-check as to whether or not your appeals are within reason. Wikipedia has a problem with tendentious editors - not everybody will accept consensus, and this can lead to behaviors that disrupt the function of the project. If you pursue dispute resolution without achieving the results you think are proper, at some point, you have to concede. This is difficult. If it weren't, there wouldn't be so many user essays encouraging it: WP:STICK is one of my favorites.

Again, I'm not speaking to the particulars, but to the broader principle. I haven't even read the debate here and do not know where the discussion is in the "dispute resolution" process. You may be on the brink of consensus. You may be miles away. No idea.

In any event, please be very careful about moving away from the good faith assumption. This is particularly important around hot-button topics where emotions are high, because it's very easy to make those debates personal. People can have opinions about things, even very strong opinions...and even very "wrong" opinions, without anything untoward going on. That doesn't mean that nothing untoward does go on. But accusations of the sort (or even implications) should rely on a careful and thorough evaluation of an editor's overall patterns. Focusing on the content questions and just putting aside suspicions about personal motivations from other editors generally works quite well here. It won't always result in the outcome that you think is best in any given discussion, but, importantly, the other approach hardly ever does. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)