Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 14 April 2018

To submit a Personal Attack or Baseless Accusation, please click here.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Talk:Colt AR-15

You removed one of my comments with this edit . I've since restored it. Geogene (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk page discussions

The following discussion was moved from User talk:Thewolfchild by Thewolfchild.

"Please stop moving conversations from your user talk page to article talk pages. Regardless of how you choose to operate your talk page, it is the appropriate place to discuss user behavior, and edit summaries such as "this isn't the place" may be confusing to new editors. –dlthewave ☎ 13:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)"

I reverted an editor that is not you, yet you contested the revert on my talk page. Reverts to articles should be discussed on the article talk page. So I moved the comment, along with my reply. Another editor, again not you, commented on the remarks I made about the his content, as well as the his remarks about my content, on an article talk page, so again, I moved the comment, along with reply to that talk page. This isn't about "how I choose to operate my talk page", this is about keeping discussions about articles and their content in one place. And if you look at my replies, I am addressing the content, so no, it shouldn't be on my talk page. Further, as I pointed out, neither of these edits were yours, yet you are choosing to involve yourself. This doesn't appear to collegial behaviour on your part, rather more prevocational, despite the fact the last thing I said to you was "I hoped we could move forward and work on the project". Your excuse for all this? "It might confuse new editors" Well, neither of those editors is "new". So please, stop posting comments, on behalf of other editors, to my talk page, when they don't belong there. And also, please stop collapsing, changing and otherwise interfering with my comments on article talk pages. Just focus on article content. Thank you. - WOLFchild 15:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you again collapsed a pair on my posts on an article talk page, making this I believe the third time. I will ask again, that you please not do that. Your edit summary "Collapse non-content-related discussion" and the heading on the collapse template "about editor conduct" is incorrect. Please just focus on the article content and talk page content that serves the article content. There is nothing to be gained by this repetitive, baiting behaviour. Let's please move forward, thank you, - WOLFchild 02:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to move forward and focus on article content as well. However, I have trouble understanding how this edit is a step toward improving the article. Let's try to keep discussions about editors in their respective usertalk spaces. –dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit you've cited has a back and forth about the validity of sources. He's made a comment about the one's I've provided and in return, I've asked him about the ones he's provided. Also, while I was critical of his contributions, I'm not "personalizing" this, but just same, I have asked what parts of my comment he takes issue or would like to see removed. I await an answer on those points, and just recently posted a follow up with ping. So, again, please stop collapsing it. The other section was about the bullet list I reverted. I gave explanation for the edit summary and further explained the revert with cited guidelines in support. I have no idea why you keep collapsing that either, but please stop. When you do it repeatedly, it becomes disruptive. The simple fact is, you have one editor making active additions to an article that another feels are non-neutral and says as much. The first editor feels that is a "personal attack", but really, it's not. If I say "I feel your edits are POV-ish and have an anti-gun tone", that's not an attack. it's a critical comment on the that editors contributions to the article. If I say something more derogatory of his edits, followed by personal insults about his intellects and whatnot, that would be a personal attack. But I haven't done anything of the sort. Just because I'm critical, doesn't mean I'm "personalizing", which is the accusation that seems to pop up often when editors disagree with this particular editor. And by the way... none of these editors are you. I'm not sure why you feel the need to manage this talk page, people are going to disagree, this is a contentious issue and there are going to be disagreements. And despite making no significant changes to the article, I was outright accused of "owning" (I noticed you didn't collapse or otherwise address that). And while those disagreements are typically 'pro-gun' vs. 'anti-gun', this is more of a case of 'unbalanced & non-neutral' vs. 'balanced & neutral". I'd hate to think what would happen if some staunch pro-pun, NRA, 2nd amendment types showed up. I'd probably have the same discussions with them because, as I've said all along, I want the article to stay balanced, neutral, focused on the subject. It's an encyclopaedia article, not a NYT op-ed column. Despite your RfC, (what happened to that btw?) editors are adding more and mass-shooting/assault-whatever info, without consensus or even a discussion. And while that's not "mandatory", it is strongly encouraged (surely you agree with collaboration?). The purpose of your RfC was to see if the community wanted such additions, and before it's even completed. and without any consensus in support, there has been significant content added anyway. Unless your RfC shows a strong consensus in support of this content, most, if not all of it, will have to be removed. That`s why I`ve asked people (repeatedly) to slow down on the mass changes, wait for the RfC, then decide what content should be added, how much of it and in what fashion, based on the RfC. We need to abide by what the community wants, not what a handful editors want. I take it you agree with that ideal? - WOLFchild 10:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC) (sorry about the length, but I hope this puts the issue to rest - have a good day)

Project firearms guidelines

Dlthewave, I wanted to thank you for your feedback here ]. I think we both have a better feel for where the other is coming from. We may not agree on some of the editorial stuff but your comments made me feel better about trying to work out any disagreements we might have. Springee (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, me again. I was about to reverse this good faith edit ] because the essay in question had previously been proposed and rejected as POVPUSH (see talk page Archive 9). However when I looked into it I forgot that the page had recently been resurrected by a sock. It turns out another sock of the same editor is pushing it again. I've filed a SPI. I suspect the essay will be returned to sandbox state. Just FYI. Springee (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow the POV concern. We'll see how the SPI turns out, but it's likely that a non-sock editor would return it to essay space in that event. –dlthewave ☎ 19:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Uncollapse

Dlthewave, since I just undid your collapse change I wanted to say why to avoid any ill will. I understand why you did the collapse but I don't agree that the original comment was off topic. By putting my comment inside of the collapse you negate the reason why I made it. For that reason I put it back outside. It would be a refactoring issue if the reply to my comment didn't come with so it has to come as well. I don't know about you but sometimes when people revert my edits my first thought is along the lines of why do they keep their head in their own tail pipe! I just wanted you to know this wasn't meant to be something like that! Springee (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Bozeman, Montana & help for bio Arthur Alphin

Hello Dlthewave, coincidentally, I saw that you are from Montana and worked on the article Bozeman, Montana. Also coincidentally i tried to fix a bio for Arthur Alphin who is living in Bozeman (see his CV). Perhaps you can do something for both articles ??? f.e. in Bozeman,_Montana#Notable_people and for the bio. I already tried to get help there. I would by lucky if you might help. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't be of much help in that area. Be aware that the self-published CV may be useful for tracking down further information about Alphin but should not be used as a source for mainspace content. –dlthewave ☎ 22:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Please keep your aspersions to yourself. Also please don't post on my talk page again. Thank you. Please keep all comments of me to the appropriate article talk page on topic. -72bikers (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)