Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:12, 12 April 2014

Archives

Readme First

Welcome to my talk page. You may leave me messages here but please be aware that this talk page is available to the entire world and there is no real easy way for things to entirely ever disappear from Wikipedia. Big brother, the person you're complaining about, the NSA, the KGB, the AGW could be reading your words.

This is how I work: If you leave a message for me here, please watch this page and I will respond to your posts here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch your talk page and look for a response on your talk page. This way we can keep our conversations together.

Please start a new topic by enclosing your topic with double equals signs "== Your Topic ==" so that it can all be organized. From time to time I might archive my conversations and put them in one of the archives to the right. If you find that I have "blanked" my talk page, I have likely simply archived old conversations. I will generally always archive and never delete (called blanking by people around here) but I will delete personal attacks or vandalism unless I think they may be relevant to administrative actions later. Please assume that I am the administrator of this talk page and that I may do with it as I please (this means that I archive as I see fit, delete vandalism or rude comments, and may ask you to not post here if you are harassing me. I adhere to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines).

Be my guest, please make yourself at home, sit down, take your shoes off....please don't take the silver and don't break the crystal and we'll get through this just fine.

Note to uncivil, rude, profane, or tendentious editors - it's ok to disagree, it's even normal. I will make every good faith effort to see it your way and work with you to improve any article if you are collegial and civil. I reserve the right to not respond to your statements or questions anywhere on the wiki if you are uncivil, rude, or tendentious - as I define those terms. Please accept my silence, not as a inability to answer, but as a benign form of civil disobedience towards what I see as a disturbing trend on the wiki.

As I mentioned on my main page, sometimes I can be on here a lot and sometimes it can be months between edits so, if I don't respond - don't despair. If all else fails, be bold. I trust in my fellow editors to keep things going. Wikipedia has existed just fine without me and I'm sure it will continue trudging along just fine long after I finally do completely retire.

Talk Entries to Justanonymous Below This Line

ANI on Andy

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control in the Third Reich dab

I undid your removal of the link to Gun legislation in Germany on the dab page I created for Gun Control in the Third Reich, because the Germany page is where the historic information regarding German gun control can be found. I also think it is more likely that they would be looking for historical information rather than a book (not to downplay the contributions you are making with the book, but trying to help the average reader find the information that they are looking for.) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, please take a look at what I did and see if you're ok with it.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gun Control in the Third Reich (book) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gun Control in the Third Reich (book) 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/Gun Control in the Third Reich (book) 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gun_control and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Gun control arbitration case notice

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence

The word limit on party sections is 1,000 words. Your section is over 3,000 words. Please reduce the amount of material in your section to comply with the limit. Thanks.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some inline diffs in there. I'm not an expert in this diff technique, I'm just a Contributor who really shouldn't be here, so i hope the inline diffs don't count against me. I also hope it's worth a read. If the content is procedurally discounted, I will be disappointed. I think we're in a dangerous place with this level of profanity, negativity and bullying which I personally think is driving good editors away. Me included. Arbcom needs to decide whether this is to be the lawless cursed earth or whether the rule of law and civility needs to apply.....particularly to contentious articles. We just can't be name calling editors patronizing little trolls or telling people to shut the fuck up, good and great people just won't edit in that environment. You have the authority to decide and set the tone here. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators look at diffs in detail; there is no need for copy-and-pasting what others have said on other pages. For instance, your example of (this) leading to (that) - you could substitute the first green box (the exchange between Andy and Anythingyouwant) with this diff of Andy actually making that comment. An example of this would be that Bbb23 asked you to reduce the amount of in-line material but you believe most of it are worth reading. This way, the arbitrators can see precisely who said what in response to what. Most of the inline diffs can be changed to a link to the diff with a summary - making it easier for the arbitrators to track down what was said where. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it seems I did it wrong. Unfortunately, my schedule is limiting the amount of time I can spend here and the period for entering and modifying of evidence is now closed I think. If my evidence gets discounted for bad form, I'll learn my lesson for the next time I hope never comes. I was just trying to show the context behind the edits. I'm very apprehensive of being at this level...very new territory for me and frankly a bit afraid I'll be sanctioned, banned, or banished. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Penwhale Is there a convenient way to count words in the section? (other than say, counting :) ) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're open until the 25th, I've gone ahead and started to pare down my comments. I cut and pasted the content into MS Word and I get a very quick word count with that but I don't know what platform you're running. I think with this last set of edits, I should be under the limit.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paste it into MS Word. — goethean 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this online that might help if you're on a Linux or some mainframe environment. http://www.wordcounttool.com. Full disclaimer, I haven't used that and don't know if they're phishing. Like Goethean says, ms word is likely safest and easiest. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a bot that counts the words/diffs for RFAR evidence pages; however, the bot is not active for some reason. I can ask the maintainer of the bot, but otherwise, yeah, have to use word count tools. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT NOTICE

A large amount of additional evidence has been presented against you in the ongoing ArbCom case about the gun control article. If you assumed that the evidence period would end at 23:59 on 25 January, then please be aware that that has changed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you much. To me this is just bad faith on the part of ArtifexMayhem. If he were acting in good faith and intended to dump this on the 11th hour about me personally, he could've given me some notice of his intent right here. Not that he has to, but given his delay, he could've been polite. He did not. He intended a sucker-punch in my mind. Nothing surprises me anymore. Justanonymous (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence talk page

I don't know if you're aware, but ArtifexMayhem has asked you a question at the Evidence Talk Page. He seems to want to know why you said that he said that a "Small Arms Survey" was peer reviewed. Perhaps this diff might indicate a misunderstanding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much --- Artifexmayhem has my sincerest apologies. It was not he who made the statement I referenced -- it was Fiachabyrne -- I added the link to my evidence page. I was working fast and from memory to try to get content in there before the deadline but in fairness to him I went and double checked and discovered that my memory is not unflawed (made those corrections before I saw these talk page entries so I had every intent to double check before the deadline went) So, again he has my apologies -- I fixed the record. I left an apology on his talk page as well. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not 100% convinced that the Small Arms Survey is "peer reviewed" in the usual way, but it claims to be "peer reviewed". Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the description which says it's and Independent Research Project with a goal to promote gun control. So it's not a journal that accepts independent papers. So it's not a journal. It's a pro-gun control organizatin publishing pro-gun control articles. I guess it could be argued that any publication is "peer reviewed" if you just have your buddy who shares your beliefs read it. Guns and Ammo is "peer reviewed" if our standard is that we're only going to publish anti-gun control articles and we're only going to accept review by anti-gun control activists. The point is that it's not an academic journal so just because they say it's not just "peer reviewed" but "extensively peer reviewed" doesn't mean that it subscribes to any kind of academic rigor -- it's an activist organization just like Greenpeace. They got Castle Doctrine mixed up with Stand your Ground so if they're doing peer review - it's not very good. At the end of the day when the debate was going on, I caved in that it's marginally WP:RS and if you cite it carefully it can be included in the encyclopedia but that should mean that if it stays so can Halbrook quotes -- same standard. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This message is being sent to 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 are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 ::::Hi, I'm not 100% convinced that the Small Arms Survey is "peer reviewed" in the usual way, but it claims to be "peer reviewed".  Right?[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 :::::I read the description which says it's and Independent Research Project with a goal to promote gun control.  So it's not a journal that accepts independent papers.  So it's not a journal.  It's a pro-gun control organizatin publishing pro-gun control articles. I guess it could be argued that any publication is "peer reviewed" if you just have your buddy who shares your beliefs read it.  Guns and Ammo is "peer reviewed" if our standard is that we're only going to publish anti-gun control articles and we're only going to accept review by anti-gun control activists.  The point is that it's not an academic journal so just because they say it's not just "peer reviewed" but '''"extensively peer reviewed"''' doesn't mean that it subscribes to any kind of academic rigor -- it's an activist organization just like Greenpeace.  They got Castle Doctrine mixed up with Stand your Ground so if they're doing peer review - it's not very good.  At the end of the day when the debate was going on, I caved in that it's marginally WP:RS and if you cite it carefully it can be included in the encyclopedia but that should mean that if it stays so can Halbrook quotes -- same standard. -[[User:Justanonymous|Justanonymous]] ([[User talk:Justanonymous#top|talk]]) 00:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
+== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
+[[File:Peacedove.svg|60px|left]]
+This message is being sent to 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 are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting|Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting]]".
+Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> [[User:EarwigBot|<span style="color:#060;">EarwigBot</span>]] <sup>''[[User:The Earwig|<span style="color:#000;">operator</span>]] / [[User talk:The Earwig|<span style="color:#000;">talk</span>]]''</sup> 01:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)