User talk:TruthIsDivine

The Gary Kleck article is governed in part by the policy at WP:BLP (Biographies of Living People). Potentially controversial information added to that page must be accompanied by a reliable source, which is why I've removed your latest addition. If you provide a source, the information can be returned to the article. Thanks. clpo13(talk) 22:15, 6 December 2015 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control
If you read Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control you can see that the ban was suspended as of October. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for attempting to harass other users. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Rschen7754 22:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to any reviewing administrator: this user is likely violating other policies (and is editing contentiously in an ArbCom-related area) and I will not object to any firmer sanctions that another admin implements. --Rschen7754 22:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In a case of exceptionally poor timing I just finished making this report Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement you may wish to drop in and shortcircuit the report since he's already blocked, but with the personal attacks and edit warring, I think WP:NOTHERE may be in play. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

== Gaijin42 inserted fake statistics into the Defensive Gun Use article which I tried to remove, since his references have no citation of the 33 million figure. It is wholly invented. He Removed the accurately cited statistics I added ==

== Gaijin42 inserted fake statistics into the Defensive Gun Use article which I tried to remove, since his references have no citation of the 33 million figure. It is wholly invented. He Removed the accurately cited statistics I added ==

22:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC). gaijin42's references do not say what he says they say. He is unable to produce a quoted citation showing the 33 million figure. He is making it up. If you want to have an encyclopedia with made up facts, where someone can add a figure of 33 million that they invented and which isn't in the article, please go ahead. But I don't think that's an encyclopedia anymore. As for me, I added a cited, with inline citations reference showing that there are only 1600 verified DGUs yearly. Not only that, Gaijins claim is not logically possible. Any elementary logic shows that what he is claiming is impossible. Think about what you are doing in allowing a vandal like Gaijin to insert fake statistics into articles to suit a political agenda when he has already been topic banned from this area and was just reinstated. He is indeed committing fraud by inserting statistics that aren't in the reference. Also, his reference is 20 years old and is intellectually discredited years ago. You might as well replace the Period Table page with Phlogiston theory. Also, he has been blocked from editing in that area previously likely because he inserts fake statistics into articles. 33 million, or even 1'million, are not logically possible figures. They removed the ACTUALLY VERIFIED FIGURE OF 1600 which I posted with refs and inline citation to suit their own misguided beliefs. You should not allow erroneous information to be posted in an encyclopedia. The reference nowhere says 33 million, and even the 1 million figure is ludicrous.


 * Regardless, personal attacks to other users is not acceptable. You can disagree and still be civil. --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't you care that a user is getting away with making up statistics and adding them to articles? Isn't that vandalism? There is no citation that says 33 million and he has managed to get it back in there by blocking me. Do you care that your encyclopedia contains intentional falsehoods or not?


 * The source for the 33 million number has been pointed out to you multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defensive_gun_use&diff=prev&oldid=694067709 Gaijin42 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

How about the quotation of the sentence in the article that says 33 million. You send the reference but the reference doesn't say what you say it does. Thus, you are a liar (and a hillbilly.)

The actual, verified figure is 1584 in 2014. You are only off by, oh, say 2 million times, friend.
 * Sure, I do care, and I'll look into it. Regardless, you were still blocked for personal attacks and harassment. And that's still not okay, even against a vandal. --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this is what the reference that they claim actually supports their "33 million" figure says: "This paper used survey methods similar to those employed in a recent widely cited study by Kleck and Gertz (1995) and produced comparable results; yet our comparison of estimates based on NSPOF with other sources, together with puzzling inconsistencies in over a third of the defensive gun use (DGU) reports, lead us to conclude that the estimates are far too high. " it does not support 33 million, it actually says the 1 million figure is far ton high. Please think how illogical it is to think that there are 1 million defensive gun uses in the United States, and 1 million violent crimes. This is like claiming "in 200 percent of burglaries, a home alarm prevented the burglary." It DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.TruthIsDivine (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)}}

22:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC). gaijin42's references do not say what he says they say. He is unable to produce a quoted citation showing the 33 million figure. He is making it up. If you want to have an encyclopedia with made up facts, where someone can add a figure of 33 million that they invented and which isn't in the article, please go ahead. But I don't think that's an encyclopedia anymore. As for me, I added a cited, with inline citations reference showing that there are only 1600 verified DGUs yearly. Not only that, Gaijins claim is not logically possible. Any elementary logic shows that what he is claiming is impossible. Think about what you are doing in allowing a vandal like Gaijin to insert fake statistics into articles to suit a political agenda when he has already been topic banned from this area and was just reinstated. He is indeed committing fraud by inserting statistics that aren't in the reference. Also, his reference is 20 years old and is intellectually discredited years ago. You might as well replace the Period Table page with Phlogiston theory. Also, he has been blocked from editing in that area previously likely because he inserts fake statistics into articles. 33 million, or even 1'million, are not logically possible figures. They removed the ACTUALLY VERIFIED FIGURE OF 1600 which I posted with refs and inline citation to suit their own misguided beliefs. You should not allow erroneous information to be posted in an encyclopedia. The reference nowhere says 33 million, and even the 1 million figure is ludicrous.


 * Regardless, personal attacks to other users is not acceptable. You can disagree and still be civil. --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't you care that a user is getting away with making up statistics and adding them to articles? Isn't that vandalism? There is no citation that says 33 million and he has managed to get it back in there by blocking me. Do you care that your encyclopedia contains intentional falsehoods or not?


 * The source for the 33 million number has been pointed out to you multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defensive_gun_use&diff=prev&oldid=694067709 Gaijin42 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

How about the quotation of the sentence in the article that says 33 million. You send the reference but the reference doesn't say what you say it does. Thus, you are a liar (and a hillbilly.)

The actual, verified figure is 1584 in 2014. You are only off by, oh, say 2 million times, friend.
 * Sure, I do care, and I'll look into it. Regardless, you were still blocked for personal attacks and harassment. And that's still not okay, even against a vandal. --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this is what the reference that they claim actually supports their "33 million" figure says: "This paper used survey methods similar to those employed in a recent widely cited study by Kleck and Gertz (1995) and produced comparable results; yet our comparison of estimates based on NSPOF with other sources, together with puzzling inconsistencies in over a third of the defensive gun use (DGU) reports, lead us to conclude that the estimates are far too high. " it does not support 33 million, it actually says the 1 million figure is far ton high. Please think how illogical it is to think that there are 1 million defensive gun uses in the United States, and 1 million violent crimes. This is like claiming "in 200 percent of burglaries, a home alarm prevented the burglary." It DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
So I take it that you don't care that those two users are making up statistics?

Who cares if I'm banned? What you should be caring about is whether your articles contain demonstrably intellectual dishonest falsehoods. Had those two frauds actually read the reference they cited, they would have noted it concluded this: "This paper used survey methods similar to those employed in a recent widely cited study by Kleck and Gertz (1995) and produced comparable results; yet our comparison of estimates based on NSPOF with other sources, together with puzzling inconsistencies in over a third of the defensive gun use (DGU) reports, lead us to conclude that the estimates are far too high."

Thus, not only does it NOT give us a higher estimate than Kleck's estimate of 1 million, it says 1 million is "far too high" as anyone who hasn't had a frontal lobotomy would be able to conclude. Is everyone on Wikipedia a high school dropout or something? I don't understand this level of stupidity.


 * It's very simple. Wikipedia has rules of content and behavior.  You aren't adhering to them.  You can simultaneously adhere to basic rules of civility while presenting a case that other parties are allegedly engaging in inappropriate behavior.  if you are willing to do this, I will remove your ban.  If you are not, I will not.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I will refrain from attacks. The reason I have been screaming for help here is because they are presenting the issue in a way which greatly distorts the truth. I don't understand where they think the 33 million figure is justified and they could not supply a quotation. Further, they deleted the figures I added which were  not estimates based on surveys, but actual verified statistics based on police reports that  I added to the article, with citation to a nonpartisan gun statistics organization. I asked them many many times to explain how the statistics they are citing are even logically possible without answer. I asked why they think the reference they cite support them, when it actually says the 1 million figure is too high. Here is my side of the story. I added the information saying that There were 1600 verified cases of defensive gun use last year. I cited that from the following reliable and recent source: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls They removed this from the article without ANY explanation. To make the 1 million figure seem middle of the road, even though it is also not logically possible figure, given that there are only about 1'million incidences of violent crime annually in the US, they grossly misinterpret a reference they haven't read. The reference which they cited in support of the 33 million figure says the following: "This paper used survey methods similar to those employed in a recent widely cited study by Kleck and Gertz (1995) and produced comparable results; yet our comparison of estimates based on NSPOF with other sources, together with puzzling inconsistencies in over a third of the defensive gun use (DGU) reports, lead us to conclude that the estimates are far too high." Thus, the reference they cite says 1 million is too high. No one says 33 million, which does not pass even a basic plausibility test. The reference they cite for 33 million says 1 million is too high. Further, I was not being unbalanced. I removed the erroneous 127 figure, which was too low and was based on a misreading of the citation, as this was the number in the sample of 14,000 crimes, not the annual figure. But 55,000-80,000 is the median estimate endorsed by Harvard and all the more recent estimates. The low figure is 1600 based on number actually reported to police. The 1 million figure they cite is based on an extrapolation from 66 self-reported incidents (using bad methodology, and from 1995) but they removed most of the criticism and try to make it seem middle of the road bY introducing this fictional 33 million figure, when the study they cite in support claims that the 1 million figure of Kleck's is "far too high." (See the quote above.) everything I added to that article was exhaustively and painstakingly demonstrated from sources. Also, without this being an attack, please consider That the other party, Gaijin, just had his own gun control ban of 1 year ended a month ago, and I did justify all my edits on the talk page, and they were sourced, and this article was openly pleading for help at the top. Thank you. TruthIsDivine (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * At the end of your block, if you can edit articles not related to this topic constructively, I will consider lifting your topic ban.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the topic ban. Why don't you remove what I just proved to you is a falsehood that was likely be deliberately, or at best, erroneously, inserted into one of your articles? One might have thought that encyclopedists wouldn't like it if someone demonstrated to them that their articles contain obviously disproven falsehoods, and statistics made up to suit partisan agendas, and removal of actual verified statistics. The issue is not me; the issue is you allowing things which you know to be false to stand in your encyclopedia, and misinforming the public. You're going to let 33 million stand when they don't have a single quotation for it, and I've shown you that their "reference" for it actually claims 1 million is too high? You're going to let them remove the documented fact that there were 1584 verified police reports of defensive gun use in 2014? You're the admin, so do what you want, but I would have thought making sure your encyclopedia doesn't contain statements which are obviously false and simply deleting information in deference was against policy here

("ignore all rules has always been policy here"- the legendary philosopher jimbo wales)TruthIsDivine (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The figure is already being discussed. clpo13(talk) 00:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Then show some integrity and get rid of it. As I showed above, the U Chicago study you claim to derive it from actually sates the following: "This paper used survey methods similar to those employed in a recent widely cited study by Kleck and Gertz (1995) and produced comparable results; yet our comparison of estimates based on NSPOF with other sources, together with puzzling inconsistencies in over a third of the defensive gun use (DGU) reports, lead us to conclude that the estimates are far too high." It is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty to point me to a reference justifying your 33 millon figure, only to find, upon reading the study, that the authors conclude 1 million is "far too high." (Their words.)

How you could fix the article, if you have any intellectual integrity: 1. The 1 million should be changed to the high end estimate (or simply eliminated, since it has been disproven), given that this "estimate" based on 66 self-reported, unverified reports of open-ended defensive gun use is the highest it could actually be (assuming nearly every crime involves a defensive gun use, which obviously is implausible.) There are reasons to think this study is being given much too undue weight given that it is 20 years old, from a rather undistinguished scholar, and has been repeatedly been methodologically demolished by far more eminent people at Harvard and Chicago who have shown it is logically absurd, and has no way of distinguishing whether or not the reported incident indeed actually happened, and even assuming it happened, was lawful, rather than the survey respondent being the perpetrator. 2. You should restore the verified figure of 1584 cases verified from national police reports here. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls. This study is exhaustive, and methodologically sound: it actually looks at ALL reported cases of violence to the police OVER THE ENTIRE YEAR, FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, rather than simply taking a sample of 5,000 people who were called up by telephone 20 years ago and extrapolating from the 66 responses, without any verification of whether the incident actually occurred. You tell me which procedure is more methodologically sound, friend. 3. Stop referring to the Harvard estimates as "low-end." These are median estimates between the ACTUAL number of incidents reported, and the silly, logically impossible, and disproven estimates given by Kleck. You don't make your side stronger by inventing a 33 million bogeyman to make your 1 million ludicrous figure seem more plausible. That isn't how science works, friend.

Cheers!

And as a note, if you want to try to play a scientist on the internet, you can't just look at a table and claim that's the study's conclusion. Read what the author says. The author says 1 million is too high. Find me an inline citation that endorses a higher figure than Kleck's, or admit you are full of it.

Finally, Kleck's study is 20 years old, and he is generally agreed in the academic community, to be an intellectual fraud. Next time you may not want to put such undue weight on a 20 year old disproven study from a professor at the "highly prestigious" University of Florida State. You really had to scrape the bottom of the academic barrel to find someone who would support your position here, didn't you?

And if you have even a shred of intellectual integrity (highly doubtful), you'll put back in the 1600 figure, which is the number of VERIFIED INCIDENTS REPORTED TO POLICE. NOT AN ESTIMATE. THE ACTUAL NUMBER REPORTED.TruthIsDivine (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your reading of the gunviolencearchive report is wrong. It does not purport to estimate total cases, merely count reported cases. Per the source itself "Numbers on this table reflect a subset of all information collected and will not add to 100% of incidents." In any incident of any time, it is very well accepted that police reports generally far under count actual instances. The cook team quotes Klecks number as 2.5 million, not 1 million. Their own number (after exclusions) is 4.7 million. They say they think both numbers are too high due to flaws they perceive in the method, but nonetheless that is their estimate using that method. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No shit that some cases are unreported. But 1)the actual number of reported cases SHOULD OBVIOUSLY BE IN THE ARTICLE IF YOU HAD ANY INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY. 2) that's the actual low end. The low-end is not 50,000. The low-end is the 1600 Reported cases. A median, Harvard-accepted estimate is 50,000. The people who say 1 million, 2.5 million, 4.6 million are so far they should have their license to practice social science revoked. The studies are 20 years old and should not be getting cited here to begin with, especially because they estimate that over 100 percent of crimes are prevented by defensive gun use. Want to explain how that is logically possible, when there are only 1.2 violent crimes annually? Also, since you love Kleck so much, his study claims that 50 percent of defensive gun uses ARE reported. If so, then there would only be 3200 incidents yearly. Q.E.D. Learn how to read, friend!

Do you have any idea how silly you sound claiming that 20 year old estimates based on a phone survey of 5000 people, who were asked open-ended leading questions "Did you use a gun defensively" that had 66 unverified responses of yes ought to be accorded more weight than an actual study of all police reports last year? Hmm? Or how illogical you appear when you claim "It is logically possible for there to be more defensive gun uses than crimes." I do not have any comprehension how anyone could be so unable to read, think, or reason, and still able to survive. I'm amazed.TruthIsDivine (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. -- GB fan 01:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)