User talk:Gaijin42

Personal Attack on Gun control

Please strike through your remarks on Gun Control which constitute a WP:PA personal attack on me. I want you to understand that I will not accept such behavior. Thank you, and I hope you will do the right thing so that we can get back to improving the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. I said that your statement equating gun control to Mayonnaise was trolling, and I stand by it. I agree that we should improve the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

3RR Violation on Gun Control

You have 4 reverts on Gun Control. Among your reverts is my language that relates the Nuremberg Laws to the execution of policies which discriminated according to the definitions codified therein. Please undo your revert of my text. With respect to 3RR, you may also undo another of your reverts, but I believe that your removal of my text is detrimental to the thread of the text and suggest that you undo your reversion there. SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

honest effort for consensus here : Why is the fact that the nurember laws defined jewishness important to the section? We still have the larger context of "hundreds of laws" etc, and there is no real controversy (within the context of our article) of who is Jewish etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am attempting to work for consensus here in order to determine the right thing. the template is not helpful. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:PraetorianFury

It is all but admitted that User:PraetorianFury is User:AzureFury, an editor with an extensive block log. Shadowjams (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gaijin42. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfrobinson (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think I have the chance to get involved (I'm not particularly interested in the gun control article), as today I'm basically taking a short break from being really busy. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Dot" Indians

Hi,

I suggest that you strike out your comment in which you refer to Indians as "dot" Indians. That's offensive. — goethean 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about two groups of indians in two consecutive sentences. They needed to be distinguished from each other. While certainly it was not a PC statement, your asserting that it is objectively offensive and requiring censorship is incorrect and inappropriate. Mind the speck in your own eye. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gaijin42. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 15:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

Hi, I'm TechFilmer. Gaijin42, thanks for creating State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It maybe deleted unless you can provide a source that you got this information from! Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Tech Addict, Fan-Fiction Writer, and Aspiring Filmaker 18:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The content of the article will be forked over from the main Trayvon Martin article, which has plethoras or references. I am just doing some stub work to prep for it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. That makes sense. Tech Addict, Fan-Fiction Writer, and Aspiring Filmaker 18:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback on User_talk:Crashdoom

Hello, Gaijin42. You have new messages at Crashdoom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theseus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clue (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) 12:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller

Heads up. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Grandmothers

Whether the sources currently used in the article are good one or not is quite separate from the question of whether an article on this topic should exist. There are are many reports concerning the grandmothers, who, as has been said, seem to be good at creating publicity about themselves if nothing else. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you point out some of those sources? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

[1]. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

results from that search in order

• own site
• phrayul.com - could be an RS
• press release repost
• announcement of documentary screening
• 404
• in passing (about one of the 13 in particular, just mentioning she is a member)
• ?? abstract
• wash post, written by subject
• college paper "in local events" story
• press release
• 404
• about a school, in passing ref
• about documentary
• in passing
• listed as one of 5 movies being shown
• about the documentary, and one of the grandmothers
• in passing about an eco conference where the grandmothers gave an opening blessing

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's only the first page, and even there there is repeated coverage. Yes, they are not the world-shaking power of shamanistic-super-women they present themselves as, but who cares? There is enough to justify the existence of an article. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gaijin42, please see my reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/the remaining members of the council of grandmothers. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Han-Nom

As I think you can see, I put quite a bit of work into the Han-Nom article. From the tone of the discussion, it is clear that little if any of it would survive a "merger." As long as Han-Nom is the term used on the language templates, the article serves an important function. I realize that the title is not a household word, but I took the template descriptors as I found them. In ictu oculi has been stalking me for almost a year. He follows me from one article to another and denounces whatever I am doing. I guess everyone needs a hobby. Why other editors go along with what he does, I have no idea. Kauffner (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

From your user name, I was thinking that perhaps you are more familiar with Japanese terminology, which is somewhat different than the terminology for Vietnamese. "Kanji" translates as "Chinese characters," and the same word can be used regardless of what language the characters represent. But "Nom" applies only to characters used to write Vietnamese. So it does not include things like official histories, which were written in Classical Chinese (chữ Hán). Kauffner (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A merger says nothing about what the final name of the article may be, nor what redirects for multiple terms are appropriate. I have no opinion on if In ictu oculi is stalking you or not, but it seems clear that the two articles are talking about the exact same subject, which may have multiple valid names. Multiple articles should not be written just because a concept is known by more than one term. In order to avoid a merger, you would need to find sources showing that chunom is a distinct concept separate from hannom and that one is researched and discussed without the other. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aama Bombo may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 911, but he heard a gunshot before the call was completed. The jury was played Good's 911 call.[[File:Trayvon_Martin_Shooting_Call2.ogg] Good testified that his statement in earlier interviews of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your work so far on International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Maigne Event (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Gajun42,You originally created the page The State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman including the middle name "Michael". I need you to include the name "Michael" in the title page.-The Maigne Event.

SPI against me

Gajin, I was very surprised when you opened this case against me. I have been editing only since the start of 2013. The other other user had so different editing patterns, and was already blocked indefinitely. You just opened this case because I voted a "Keep" for an article, which the other user created again afterwards? Really, it is an awful flaw of yours. Please, try to get it that I am not a sock puppet. I know that my single vote is enough. Cannot be that ludicrous, when it's said that I will do sock puppetry with a same username? So please, I will request you to revisit your twinkle usage regarding SPI for the next time. It is only for a touch of a click, but the result can be far more distinct. Just a request. Faizan 14:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Fringe groups...

I note your edit comments with your homeopathy edit. Would you not say that skeptics making demonstrations are fringe groups? Cjwilky (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are talking about. The only edit I have made to that article recently is to revert the tag added by an SPI IP account, which was added with no discussion, and complained that all the negative info was from scientific and medical literature (or as we commonly refer to them, reliable sources). Gaijin42 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. that was the edit here. No issue with your edit whatsoever, though thats not what the contributor said. They raised the issue of implicit bias from research mainly done by people in the pocket of Big Pharma and similar payees, a very valid point, but as you say, should be discussed as it's a controversial point.

I was noting the edit comment and how that applies to Skeptic groups making public demonstrations? Cjwilky (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cjwilky (Does this work as well as a TB?) : Is there some context you are referring to? The notability of a group, or of their particular demonstration would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I was replying to the IPs comment asking what other alternative medicine practitioners think of homeopathy. That's the equivalent of asking dowsers what they think of seances, Or asking big foot hunters where they think Atlantis is. They are not experts in the field at hand, and they are generally not reliable sources in any case (except for documenting their own generally fringe views) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OKay, thanks for your replies. Yep, nice one, I got a notification:

"Gaijin42 mentioned you on User talk:Gaijin42.

"→‎Fringe groups...: r"

Cjwilky (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

gun control RFC

I will give some thought to ways of clarifying my response to the RFC. I am a bit concerned that packaged response to a group of questions may polarize the issue rather than encouraging search for common ground through exploring shades of gray. I had hoped my examples might help explain how specification of privileged classes is as pernicious as the cited targeting of underprivileged classes. Thank you for your efforts to provide a balanced POV on this important issue. Thewellman (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thewellman I agree that the RFC method is not optimal, however the article has been in an entrenched edit war/debate for quite some time, and there was no obvious resolution in sight. At a minimum this RFC has brought significantly more visibility to the debate at hand. I look forward to hearing your additional thoughts. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Side issue. Thanks, Gaijin, for the agf. (And I certainly do believe in gun control.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for your attention to this subject. I continue to believe intent is ambiguous. While it is entirely possible (and perhaps probable) that individuals with undemocratic objectives may be found among supporters of gun control, it may unproductively polarize the issue to paint well-meaning, public-spirited individuals with that broad brush. NPOV may be preserved by avoiding identification of malicious intent in actions which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.Thewellman (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thewellman Certainly I agree that all proponents of gun control are not undemocratic. But the "intent" question was not attempting to ask that question. It was "Did certain totalitarian governments intentionally implement gun control as part of their opression" (at least under the "intent" header). Perhaps my confusion is due to the location of your comment? Your objection (as stated here) seems like it is more applicable in question 4, 5, or 6? (IE, this is true, but is commenting about this appropriate?) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control RfC

I don't agree with supporting everything that was suggested. I just want all the facts to be included. So I can't vote up above (on gun control rfc)Markewilliams (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Markewilliams You are of course free to !vote however you want, but if you want the facts to be included, what is preventing you from !voting on the support some/oppose some section? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't like how the proposals are worded. They are not Wikipedia requests for votes at all. They don't follow the format. For me to vote on those items they would have to be re-worded to fit the regular format.Markewilliams (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Markewilliams What standard format are you talking about? I attempted to follow Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment per "Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" but if there is some other standard in place I am not aware of it, or would have done so. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

State Of Florida v. George Zimmerman

Thank you for adding in the opening statements in the George Zimmerman Trial.I am very interested in this trial. What are your views about this case? I hope that the trial goes well for George Zimmerman.The Maigne Event (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The situation is very complicated, and there are no winners. Zimmerman was an idiot, and took numerous foolish actions, and I think there is a fair case that he was profiling inappropriately (although Martin certainly has a checkered past as well, and could have been up to no good). However, being an idiot is not a crime.

I can see numerous plausible scenarios, everywhere from Martin initiated, attacked, etc to the exact opposite - but I think that proof of anything is far in between.

Proving that someone who called the police was acting with evil intent, especially when there is evidence of (minor) harm to Zimmerman is a very high bar, so I think the result should be not guilty based on reasonable doubt.

Defense's opening statement has been HORRIBLE. incoherent and rambling. A possible bad sign for the defense. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We will see about how the defense goes.When the verdict is issued,promise me that you will accept it.Keep on covering the Zimmerman trial.From the dectective The Maigne Event (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC).

Fraudulent claims

Credulous Wikipedians have been taken for a ride. See [2].24.22.129.215 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Broad comment about gun related articles

Don't engage in long winded conversations with TFD and AndyTheGrump because... I know you know how they're going to respond. I know (trust me I'm guilty of this) we all get into discussions deep and spill mountains of ascii at it defending our point, but I just want to suggest that you slow down a little bit on that stuff. If for no other reason than there's a lot of casual readers, even editors, that come across these articles and want to contribute, but if that's what they have to deal with, they won't. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of artworks with contested provenance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of artworks with contested provenance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artworks with contested provenance until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

You're welcome. I was quite surprised by the response at ANI and don't yet understand why someone would call for stronger evidence. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMT (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) 10:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Han-Nom

I reverted your blanking of this article here. Kauffner (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi don't worry, I've already undone as per merge discussion conclusion, but you'll probably need to watchlist. There's a related post-merge RfC on how to clean up the template. You might also want to watchlist this a related 1-man campaign. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Brew City Shooter Supply for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brew City Shooter Supply is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brew City Shooter Supply until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.. 2NewEvolution1 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)