Jump to content

User talk:Mike Searson/archive23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

Ruger Mini[edit]

My bad on the edit explanation. ALL the material excised is Ruger promotion. Most of the references are from Ruger's website. One of the refs is a dead link. I don't want an edit war. Let's submit this for arbitration. I can't foresee a compromise. I'm big on the No Promotion Rule. Tapered (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I like Martin Guitars, Taylor Guitars, and the author Tarquin Hall much more than I like Storm Ruger. Check out my April 2014 edits of their Wikipedia pages to see excised promotional material. Here's the my Contributions Page. Tapered (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

Need your opinion/input, StG 44[edit]

I think by now you know that I'm not anti-gun, nor am I trying to "sugar coat" anything about the industry or the firearms themselves, but am I off my nut to make an edit like this. This has touched off a discussion in the StG 44 Talk page here. I have absolutely no problem with the term "assault rifle" when its used properly, but in this instance am I missing something? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, found the answer here (click the "more translations" link), so yes "sturm" = "assault" in German. I still think my edit was a better use of grammar and better prose, but its not worth debating. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

Muzzle brake[edit]

Thanks for your note. I don't doubt the legal situation. I removed the citation because nothing in there seemed to discuss California law, but I didn't remove the text itself. Could you add those links as cites? That'd solve the matter. Rezin (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if I'm just being blind, can you restore the citation with the correct page number? Rezin (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. Rezin (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Enforcement request[edit]

I am filing a request for discretionary sanction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because of your editing. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mike, I just noticed this proceeding, and suggest consideration of the following perspective. The complaint seems to have a misdirected focus on semantics rather than the confrontational aspects of the editorial discussions. After years of training with the Marine Corps, I recognize your dialect of what Tom Wolfe described as army creole in The Right Stuff. The person filing this complaint, however, seems ignorant of the dialect and has misinterpreted your meaning, apparently under the impression you were speaking politically incorrect. I am reminded of standing watches with an individual who, despite all attempts at military training, persisted in responding to outrageous statements or perilous circumstances with: "My goodness!" Perhaps we need a userbox: This user speaks army creole English; although it would be better to find a service-neutral adjective including the multi-syllable dialects of sea stories and falcon codes. I'll start working up an article on the subject. Thewellman (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I similarly recognized the speech as being army creole, and saw no ill-will as being intended. But, I grew up around such language. I also grew up around black dialect, too, and see some similarities with the "n-word" as used by some in the black community. Context is everything. Wikipedia should encourage all forms of English, whether British or American or even dialects of English. Forcing an homogenization of English would make for a much less colorful world. In the firearms world, the common ergot is noticeably different than in, say, the English vocabulary found in general US West Coast dialects. It would be a shame to see a good editor be topic banned or worse over a simple misunderstanding for a typical use of firearms community army creole. My $0.02. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also recognize the use of falcon codes, which are well used in the flying community, along the same lines. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of a month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

In addition to this block, you are also indefintiely banned from any article, page, or discussion relating to the topic of gun control, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. You are further banned from interacting with, addressing, or commenting on User:Lightbreather anywhere on Wikipedia, whether or not by name. To appeal the block, please follow the instructions in the template above; to appeal either or both of the other sanctions, you may appeal to ArbCom by email while blocked or you can appeal them to AN or AE once your block expires. The reason for this combination of sanctions is, as discussed at AE, your repeated and persistent use of sexualised and violent language toward opponents in content disputes, which creates a hostile editing environment, particularly but not exclusively with regards to Lightbreather. I strongly suggest you find a less contentious topic area in which to edit, and that you take a radically different approach to editorial disagreements. Please contact me if you require clarification of any of these sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Break the rules, pay the price. I do have one question: Does the topic of "Gun Control" include technical articles about firearms (non-political)?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your IBan is 1 way. See HJ's comment to LB [1]. Per my own GC ban, it does not extend to other firearms articles in general, but there can be problem areas, such as describing if a particular firearm is or is not covered by a particular law, or how certain features are described. For example, I avoided a discussion about the StG_44 because deciding if it was an assault rifle, assault weapon, "storm" rifle etc interacted too much with various assault weapon laws. Also it interacts in a grey area with other laws, for example self defense laws are not covered, but where sources are specifically discussing self defense in the context of guns, it does. Based on the clarifications I have done so far, the general rule appears to be "If you have to ask, the answer is yes" Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a surprise. The GUNS project won't be the same. Thanks for all your help, Mike, and good luck with your future pursuits. See you again soon. At least it looks like the WP:BLADES project is free and clear from the restrictions. Your case is a harsh example to the rest of us. Rezin (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Classification is a grey area, and one I'd suggest (but not require, as that would be outside the scope of the discretionary sanctions) you avoid if it's likely to be contentious. The restriction only applies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Scope_of_remedies|"governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues"]], so I'd say that the technical aspects are fair game (within pre-existing policy, of course). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Mitchell. I never did care for those types of articles, anyway. Sorry, that I left you a mess to clean up. It might behoove the pro gun control gpeople to start their own project as a subset of the Law project or something similar to keep their tasks organized and separate from those of us devoted to the technical/historical and dare I say artistic side. No hard feelings, this is your house, I'm just a guest.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mike, first off in the words of Colonel Sherman Potter from M.A.S.H.... "Horsepucky!!" about the situation, I did/said what I could. As for the Topic Ban, since I just came off essentially the same one, you can still edit content gun articles that relate to technical and historical aspects. In fact, that's how I was justifying my participation in the StG 44 article because everything that was being discussed was in a historical context, not modern day, so "politics" did not factor in. As Gaijin42 mentioned, I am careful about the articles that I edit such as AR-15, AK-47, assault rifle or even assault weapon, but only do so in a technical or historical aspect or for grammatical or layout improvement of the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've been thinking of floating a proposal to remove "organizations" and "legislation" from the GUNS scope. That way it would be focused just on the firearms themselves without the political issues which seem to cause the headaches. Rezin (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement discussion[edit]

I am requesting action at WP:AE regarding a section at Talk:Gun show loophole which you edited. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Searson/archive23&oldid=1125493817"