User talk:Computer Guy 2

Welcome!

Hello, Computer Guy 2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Etrace, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Airplaneman ^talk 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Etrace

A tag has been placed on Etrace requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Airplaneman ^talk 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

Just a quick note to clarify.... The copyright referred to a website which published an article for which I was the author/compiler, and consisted primarily of public domain material with additional material written by me, and I retained the copyright. (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

Mexican guns

Just a note, I found a good many errors at Mexican Drug War. Primarily original research concerns where facts presented in the article are not supported by the references provided. For example, the Justice report, I couldn't find any mention of the 28% fact, though they did state the 90% figure. If you could point to where you got your information I might be able to verify it. Grsz¹¹ 04:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got a decent section now. It's important to include the 85-95% range because that's what is given a lot. But the section still includes the reports that these numbers are derived only from traced guns, which account for only a portion of the total number of guns collected. Also, I've removed a few bits that were redundant or unnecessary, and a few sources that we didn't really need as well. Grsz¹¹ 04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

Much of what you removed weren't errors..... I'm a bit short on time right now, as I'm going on travel in the morning. However, I'll point out a couple that were verifiable and supported by the citations. For example, in the OIG Report, Figure 8, the following information from ATF data on traces is presented:

Year Unsuccessful / Successful
2005 857 / 661
2006 1063 / 841
2007 10920 / 4059
2008 19541 / 6360
2009 15062 / 6664

Since the OIG didn't spoon feed us to provide totals, we have to add the columns ourselves and we find: Unsuccessful: 47,443 Successful: 18,585 out of a total number of attempted traces: 66,028. Calculating the percentage of successful traces = 28% (rounded) - as I stated. And you're right, that percentage wasn't explicitly mentioned anywhere in the document. However, I don't think adding a column of figures and calculating the percentage is original research.... Or does your opinion differ?

Stating there is controversy surrounding these figures is obvious reading the cited sources. Consequently, I wouldn't call it original research or editorializing.....

The U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico Report by Colby Goodman (University of San Diego) which was cited by BatteryIncluded in so many places, quoted "In May 2010, for example, the Mexican government, which has received training from ATF to better identify firearms, said that of the 75,000 firearms it seized in the last three years about 80 percent, or 60,000 firearms, came from the United States.18" Mr. Goodman repeats this assertion three times in his report.

Checking footnote 18 (which I guess you did), and going to the first source, found an entirely different quote, to wit: "Calderón said his government had seized 75,000 guns in Mexico in a three-year period and found that 80 percent of those whose origin could be traced were bought in the United States." No reference to 60,000 firearms - that was a conclusion by Goodman (and some others), who conveniently ignored the difference between 80% of 75,000 and 80% of the guns whose origin could be traced..... You will also find the figure of

Of course, by definition, the only guns which can be traced, are those of U.S. origin. For all practical purposes, the U.S. has the only tracing system in the world, and it can only trace U.S. origin guns.

As a side note, it is very interesting to observe that Goodman's report is packed with footnotes (very scholarly). However, a closer look reveals that over half of his footnotes refer to anonymous conversations with various unnamed ATF employees (and retirees), and a few conversations with the Violence Policy Center. Not authoritative nor verifiable sources.......

Based on hard data, the 80 - 90% figure of guns traced to the United States (which is widely reported), is pure fabrication - no matter who said it. The facts (such as provided in the OIG Report, and not disputed by ATF), simply don't support that statistic, and those who have said it, have not backed up the assertion with hard data. We have to wonder why representatives of ATF, who certainly knew better, would have repeated a false statement - particularly when testifying before Congress. Perhaps we need to remember they have a vested interest in this controversy..... And, just because a lie is widely told and often repeated, doesn't make it a verifiable fact - despite what Lenin said. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Lenin

I think we lost a lot of meaningful factual, verifiable information with your editing, but that's the way the game is played on Wikipedia. When I return, I'll re-evaluate the section, and if I have time and the inclination, I'll undo some things.... That's also the way the game is played on Wikipedia. On the positive side, you did get rid of a lot of garbage...... Let's see if BatteryIncluded flames you.....

Sincerely,

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC))

Note

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mexican Drug War. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Grsz¹¹ 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

So if I disagree with the "Sacred Cows", I'm "Edit Warring"? I've made the effort to try to discuss these issues, and received no response from you or BatteryIncluded (it's not clear - is there a sock puppet involved?). I'm not interested in an "Edit War", nor do I wish to engage in such. My interest is in presenting authoritative facts based on verified sources instead of dogma presented by those with a vested interest. I suggest it is those who immediately gut any edit I make ((Grsz11 and BatteryIncluded). I should remind you that I have the right to edit (and re-edit) anything I select.....

"Yellow pillar (3: Free) Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. Respect copyright laws, and avoid plagiarizing your sources. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed."

"Red pillar (5: Ignore all rules) Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable."

This being said, it is time for dispute resolution. Grsz11, do you want to do it? Or shall I?

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

You forgot #2, WP:NPOV. And WP:IAR is not permission to edit war. Repeating the same arguments over and over (as most of your text does) is unnecessary. Grsz¹¹ 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

You might want to review the history to see who is engaging in the edit war. I'm not repeating any of the "same arguments over and over", I quoted authoritative and verifiable sources for significantly different information for which you and BatteryIncluded promptly removed. Again, as I've stated several times, I welcome a rational discussion of the issues. (See above) However, I've been flamed and otherwise attacked for providing significant information that significantly disagrees with the dogma which has been previously presented (the "Sacred Cows").

Since I'm a newcomer to this article, I'd recommend all of you read "Please do not bite the newcomers". "New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time." Or did I read it wrong?

I take pride in being a rational person who is interested in "facts", rather than dogma. If you have the facts on your side, then I won't dispute it. But if you're repeating dogma that can't be substantiated, then I'm going to present the facts as I understand them and can quote them from authoritative, verifiable sources. Personally, as I've said before, I don't give a flip if 95% of seized Mexican guns come from the United States, or if 5% can be traced to the USA. I'm interested in verifiable facts rather than dogma.

But then, maybe BatteryIncluded and Grsz11 have a different agenda? I invite your response.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Newcomer? I've started editing that article much more recently than you. The issue is repeating the same arguments, ie "this refutes this" and "this also refutes this" without giving a balancing POV. I've tried to balance it out, and you've reverted for no apparant reason. My edits didn't change any meaning, just removed some redundancy. Grsz¹¹ 00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the section as it is now is fine. It doesn't leave out anything you've wanted in does it? Grsz¹¹ 00:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

To Grsz11: From your User Page, "I have been contributing actively to Wikipedia since 2007." I don't think that qualifies you as a "Newcomer".

1. You made significant removals last week of my posts and made comments on my talk page. I didn't undo them.

2. I responded to your comments on my talk page with hard data, but you didn't bother to respond.

3. For no justifiable reason (which I could determine), BatteryIncluded removed my recent subsequent posts, which I reversed.

4. Immediately thereafter, you removed significant portions of my post, under the pretext of "removing redundancy", and with the claim that I did not "present a balancing POV". The alternate POV was already presented - which I did not remove. I presented the alternate POV quotation (verified and with an authoritative citation) - which you removed. I did not, and do not consider changes of this nature to be "removing redundancy", rather the changes altered the meaning of the article section as I posted. I respectfully disagreed and undid the changes.

5. You immediately accused me of an "Edit War" as noted on my "Talk Page", and threatened me with being blocked from the article - without any discussion.

6. Rather than an "Edit War", this appears to be vandalism of my posts - particularly since BatteryIncluded and Grsz11 have refused to engage in any rational discussion of the issues, but simply vandalize my posts.

7. Further, I stand accused of not allowing any edits to the article other than my own - which is not accurate. The only area of my interest has to do with firearms trafficking and the reported numbers and statistics.

I reiterate.... I have no intention of engaging in an "Edit War", but do have an interest in protecting the meaning and content of this section of the article and mitigating the effect of absolute unverified opinions and dogma not backed up by facts.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

References' format

Hello, please note that bare links are not acceptable and that all references cited must be written in an acceptable manner according to Wikipedia standards. If you have no time to read the tutorial, you may want to use this automated reference generator for acceptable reference format: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php Thank you, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that.... Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ATF

I gave a reason(s) from my last edit, and the one before. Additionally, the edit was announced on the article's discussion page before its revision.

It is patently transparent that you do not have neutral POV when it comes to this article, as a cursory look at its history reveals that you are responsible for the entire section of contraversy outside of the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents (which are certainly significantly enough to be included).

Further, your revisions add no content to the article, as every law enforcement agency- to include state and local ones of comparable size- have untold cases of criminal and administrative misconduct throughout a given calender year. It is asinine to attempt to enumerate these offenses, and accordingly such crass and nonsense is not attempted on any of the other federal agencies pages nor comparable state and local departments.

If you are truly seeking to list every allegation of misconduct, a balanced approach could be given by listing the amount of positive articles ("ATF operation nets 80 arrests of alleged gang members/violent criminals, etc"). Such as list would outnumber the negative twenty fold, however, and would likely defeat your transparent purpose in illustrating the relatively miniscule negative press surrounding the organization. And such an attempt would make the article completely unbalanced, insanely longwinded, and far too combative.

Or comparatively, you could attempt to engender some objectivity by changing the standards of wikipedia regarding reporting on major organizations- be them law enforcement or otherwise. You can start by enumerating the 52 FBI (at least, that's just one a two page google search) who where arrested just in the past year from crimes ranging from drug dealing to treason.

Either way, you have no objectively at this point when it comes to this article and future attempts at revision without objectivity will result in daily- nay hourly- deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.85.14 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Hi,

I'm with WP:RCP and it seems that the page Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been attracting some attention. The IP 71.203.85.14 seems to be section blanking. We kept reverting his edits and he kept reverting ours. He posted in the latest edit summary "Don't understand the edits, per an administrator we have been discussing proposed changes on the discussion page in orderly fashion and try to rebalance the article". Is he actually working with an admin to get things resolved or just BS'ing? Thanks Bped1985 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry. I'm not an administrator, but have been the author of a considerable amount of the controversy section. At first, 71.203.85.14 didn't act like he was willing to discuss the issue, but then he settled down and began a somewhat rational discussion. It appears that if we remove three of the corrupt agents from the 2010 section, he might go away. I have no particular objection to that and was willing to make the edit. However, all the reverts started happening and I didn't want to get in the way. I'm open to whatever consensus we can put together. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've previously reported this edit war here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:71.226.23.207.5D.5D_reported_by_Computer_Guy_2_.28talk.29_03:42.2C_4_August_2011_.28UTC.29_.28Result:_Semi-protected_for_1_month.29

It appears there is an element that wants to promote their own POV and are doing so by threats and bully tactics and trying to use citations which fail to verify their statements. In fact, see the quotes in the report - such as "I'll just bury the criticism with the opposite effect to bring balance." Their version of 'balance', of course. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm aware of the posting at the the 3RR noticeboard and have just responded there. The warnings are being issued even-handedly. You should make sure to not revert again on that article within 24 hours. Let others try to help and keep using the talk page. Warnings must be issued as a part of procedure prior to reporting at the noticeboard (or blocking for that matter).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I did issue a warning: "Your threat to engage in an edit war to intimidate posting is completely inappropriate and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. This will be reported to administrators." It was ignored. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The part that is missing is linking to WP:3RR and letting a person know that they may be blocked for violating it. I've taken care of that now.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Computer Guy 2. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by making a request at WP:WQA Please notify the other party of your request so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to participate. Nobody Ent 03:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)