User talk:Miguel Escopeta

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, I have noticed that you have made a number of edits to the Second Amendment article. It would be helpful if you were to discuss your ideas about edits to that article on that article's talk page: Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gun politics interest groups template[edit]

Greetings, Miguel Escopeta. I have started a discussion about a recent edit of yours. Feel free to join in, at Template talk:Gun politics interest groups in the United States#Generic political groups. Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll at Shooting of Trayvon Martin[edit]

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [1] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "AR-15". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 December 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning AR-15, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Source on NRA, VA Tech, mental illness[edit]

Hi Miguel, do you have a source (independent from the NRA) for the wording you added here? Unless I'm missing something, t doesn't appear to be very consistent with the MSNBC article of 18 Dec 2012, so we need a source with wording closer to the wording in your edit. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Have added a cite addressing this to the article. There is a lot more detail in the newly cited article than just the quote, relative to what was done after Va. Tech. by the NRA. The pertinent NRA lobbying was a really big deal from about 2000 through 2007, based on discussions that ran heated at the time. (Larry Pratt and the GOA were really spun up.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will probably add back in some wording from the source I added, since the two sources seem to have considerably differing perspectives & language. (I'm assuming for now that both sources are equal in weight; until now I hadn't heard of Military.com.) regards, Middle 8 (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent work[edit]

You do a lot of excellent work. I think that our conflict at Assault weapon is mostly a matter of speaking different languages. I tend to see and think in the logical underpinnings, structure and definitions, both of what is written and of the related guidelines. North8000 (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control[edit]

I reverted one of your edits to the Gun control article, and left a pertinent comment on the talk page. Cheers! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made repairs and put the entry back in place with some pertinent comments. I have also removed passages and references to Miguel Faria's self published blog. Cheerio.StopYourBull (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A significant improvement. I have tweaked it further, to identify clearly the perspectives, and added a Kopel observation, too. Cheers! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double oughts[edit]

I think there was just more detail on shotguns than warranted for a general page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts without coming to talk - Gun Control[edit]

The article clearly has a tag saying it is too American since 2010, clearly there is no consensus yet you revert without coming to the talk to discuss. Come to the talk and discuss why a section on a world wide scope should lead with a US commentary that hasn't been fixed since 2010. This is not consensus, it's called bullying or editing by cabal. Come and bring your rationale-Justanonymous (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have left comments on the talk page. Was just about to post my comments there when your message arrived here, first :-) You need to check out the talk page! And, you should give enough time for editors to write something there! :-) By the way, WP:BRD implies that a major change to a consensus version can be tried (you did this), and then reverted (the R in BRD), which happened, and then discussed. Looks like we are following this procedure exactly! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HOw can you have consensus to leave a lie in the encyclopedia. Go read the entry, this is not a "particular problem to the United States" - that's saying that the United STates is worse off than Mexico, Brazil, and a full half of subsaharan africa. You reverted to an untruth. Which cannot remain. Further it's not about the United States or especially about the united states, this is a worldwide article on gun control and also a historical article. I won't demean you or chastise you. WE need to go to the talk of the page and fix the article. It's a mess and nonfacts cannot be the rationale consensus. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a particular problem to the United States, primarily because a right to arms is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Attempting to remove Constitutionally-protected arms is precisely what makes this a particular problem to the United States. There is no guarantee to arms in England, for example, due primarily to parliamentary supremacy, and the erosion of God-given rights, in place of the fixed Constitution in the US which established and essentially fixed the rights of newly-freed Englishmen as they existed in 1791. In 1791, the American concept to a right to arms was precisely identical to the English concept. It was only with the erosion of the rights to arms of Englishmen, in England, and subsequently of the rights to arms of Englishmen in Canada, Australia, etc., that forced gun control, to erode the rights of men. Your approach, to delete cited content that goes counter to your world view, is not the way Wikipedia works. All major viewpoints need to be covered. The viewpoints contrary to your world view must remain, where cited, assuming verifiability. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The context you just added here is not on the article next to the "especially in the United States" The only thing there is a statistic on gun violence levels leading the reader to think that the United States especially has a problem because of the violence level not due to the existence of the second amendment. This needs to be fixed right away.-13:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you two may be in agreement at the "big picture" level but may not realize that. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to realize that. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I started realizing that, too, over the weekend. I'm still watching the editing, but I don't see a need to jump back into the middle of that mess right now. The details of the current back and forth editing on the Nazi content there, that largely says the same thing at the big picture level, is much the same, but the positions of the editors appears just to be from a different set of perspectives. Most interesting! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment Collective-Rights History pre-Heller[edit]

Please review prior to editing or commenting further on the Second Amendment. I have posted it on the Talk Page as well, but I'm reaching out to you and all other editors personally because I sincerely believe when you review the evidence and when you search for contrary evidence, you will see I am correct about this history.

The law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.

Here are some quotes from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.
“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.” ...
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.
“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.
Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”

OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:

- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)

- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)

All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.

Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.

Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.

Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.

My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.

An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.

Further sources:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)

GreekParadise (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll play. Here's just one quote from JFK. Note that his use of "right of each citizen", and "every citizen" are clearly written in a singular form, not as a collection of citizens:

By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important. -Senator John F. Kennedy, April 1960"

This clearly shows that JFK was supportive of an individual right, not a collective right, for the Second Amendment! Where's my $100? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

revert[edit]

Not sure why you reverted, my "original research" is a well-accepted fact. The amendment is controversial, and has been interpreted numerous ways. Ive re-added the sentence, with a plethora of citations. We are on the same side here, don't be pedantic and lets not waste each other's time here eh?Gaijin42 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without citations, it looked like "original research". With cites, and re-worded, it now looks fine! Cheers! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gun shows in the United States[edit]

Hello Escopeta. It's not enough to provide a citation. Per policy, the citation needs to come from a reliable source WP:RS, be secondary in nature WP:Secondary, and not self-published WP:SELFPUB. I have reverted your edit HERE because it fails these. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Gracias! -- Miguel Escopeta (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project Appleseed[edit]

Hello, I'm KillerChihuahua. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. I don't know if you're associated with Appleseed, and I don't care. Please stop adding all the extra sales brochure and how-to like content; that is not Wikipedia's purpose. Killer Chihuahua 15:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have restored to the version before you removed the cited information. Please discuss on talk page (WP:BRD), don't simply remove cited information. Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any cited information; I removed a crapton of stuff from their website, which was written like a sales brochure. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. Killer Chihuahua 15:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting this article, from what it was last week before you removed all the content, to fix the promotional content problems. Please work with me on this! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You restored all the promotional content. This is unacceptable. Killer Chihuahua 15:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ultimately going to be promotional. I am editing/removing the promotional content, without removing all the content of the article that you removed. You essentially removed the entire article. Let's not throw the baby out with the wash, here. There is a lot of good information that can be salvaged. Please read the article and don't edit war, OK? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge !vote[edit]

Slightly confused by your comment, as gun control seems to be a huge component of gun politics whearas you said "small". However, this dovetails very nicely into a debate I am engaged in with another editor. Are you aware of reliable sources discussing/defining gun politics aspects OTHER than gun control? I think it is patently obvious that there are many topics outside gun control (although of lesser importance/coverage) but one of the editors is insisting that unless I can find sources establishing the difference between politics and control, there is in fact no difference. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gun control DR[edit]

There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control

Looks like the dispute has already died. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the AN closes the DR will be reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Have written an opening statement. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment article to dispute resolution[edit]

Just in case you were not notified GreekParadise filed a dr on this issue. Your participation there would be very much appreciated. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not notified. Have responded to the DR and participated. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent comment move on this DR, you cut 10stone5's comment section in half. Was this intentional? If so you might want to clarify your purpose. If unintentional, you may want to fix. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10stone5's second comment is in reference to Transportman's comment to everyone. I did not cut 10stone5's opening comments in half. Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2A lead[edit]

I know that you do good work. If you're thinking of knocking that out again, can you come to talk first? Thanx. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was out of town for a few days. In the meantime, it looks like an improvement has been made. The statement still seems very much out of place in the lede, but at least it now has a cite. It is not really appropriate in the lede of this article, being the statement is about the right that is protected, not about the 2A that protects the right which is the actual topic of the article. We could just as well add the dicta that the rights protected by the 2A doesn't require citizenship, which was also in an earlier SCOTUS ruling, and it would be just as (ir)relevant. A cite would be easy for this additional statement. Being it is kind of hard to pick up a feces by the clean end and try to remove it when there are so many trying to push an agenda in the lede by adding it back in, perhaps a cite is about the best that can be had for what is largely an irrelevant aside unrelated to the topic of the article itself. (Any comment(s) on adding the lack of necessity for citizenship for the right, from the earlier SCOTUS ruling? That would certainly cause some mental gymnastics in the editors that are pushing an agenda to regulate firearms, in the modern sense of the word, not in the "well-regulated" meaning sense of the 18th Century.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) On the right vs the amendment, that is easily addressed by a minor wording change "The extent to which the right is protected by the amendment is not unlimited" or some such. Similar objection to limited, or citizen would equally apply to individual. If the amendments only purpose is to protect a right, then defining the right which is protected is obviously salient (unless we want to push everything about the right into the RTKABA article, and basically gut the 2a article. Frankly this topic is incredibly controversial (although I think the 3 of us are probably close to the same page) and the most crucial questions from the public are who has the right (individuals) and how expansive is the right (not unlimited, but what the limits actually are is unknown at this point). Citizens/americans is of lesser importance compared to "individuals" and also a more complex answer since not all citizens are protected (felons etc) and some non-citizens are. That may be better for the body than the lede. (late signing) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerky[edit]

I think my summary was "while true, not central to the article." I'm not convinced that the article is served by a digression into gun show cuisine in the very first sentence. Perhaps it should be mentioned farther down? Jerky and dried meat processing marketing at gun shows in general seems to be a concession to a sadly widespread lack of cooking skills among hunters. I used to know a guy in college who hunted and was an excellent cook: his fresh smoked venison hams were about as far removed from jerky as could be. Acroterion (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order to merit inclusion, there need to be reliable sources that say that it is an important part of gun show culture. Countless other things are sold at gun shows; bow hunting items, canned foods, food preservatives, tools for dressing game, camouflage, political tracts, jewelry, on and on. Jerky may be sold at gun shows; it is not notable enough for inclusion in the lede. The inclusion was previously backed up by a link to a company that sells jerky; I removed both the info and the link, because it was pure advertising. Again, without reliable sources, it doesn't merit inclusion. Anastrophe (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we all were leaving notes simultaneously. A possible reference is here. There is certainly a lot more than guns sold at gun shows. I personally know several people that only go to gun shows to buy their next month's supply of jerky and to socialize :-) That said, Jerky is more commonly sold at gun shows than many types of guns! (Cheap derringers, specifically, come to mind.) I have never been to a gun show in the South East US that didn't have jerky for sale. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does jerky specifically need to be mentioned? As opposed to knife sharpeners? It would be sufficient to say that many non-firearm related items are sold, without specifically naming them all. The assortment could be listed as trivia later in the article, but it's definitely not so important that the lede requires mention of it. Anastrophe (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At any typical gun show in the South East US, jerky dealers usually number 3 to 5 dealers at each show. This is at small shows that only have 50 to 100 tables. On the other hand, knife sharpeners are usually limited to just one table, if that, at these size shows. For the larger shows, though, with 300 to 500+ tables, there are typically many more jerky dealers, often amounting to as many as 12 to 18 dealers. That said, there are admittedly two types of gun shows, those that encourage jerky and those that ban it (as alluded to here.) For something that seems to be inherent in most every gun show, though, I prefer that we be inclusive, rather than exclusive. That said, the traveling social mall aspect of gun shows is something that has been left out of the present article. It would seem only fair that we include cited references to the larger venue that gun shows have become. Keep in mind that the majority of readers that peruse this article have never, ever, been to a gun show, in all likelihood. They think of gun shows as places where guns are sold illegally (which is extremely far from the truth, what with at least 5+ ATF agents wandering the aisles in civilian clothes at even the little 50 to 100 table shows!) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, jerky dealers usually outnumber ammunition dealers at gun shows. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cant quite decide if you are trolling/joking, or just in some gun show culture very different. I have been at gun shows all through the midwest, and have never seen more jerky vendors than gun related items. The secondary stuff I see at my shows is either knives, or accessories (range bags, holsters, etc). In either case, both of our experiences are WP:OR and any statement about gun shows in general would need to be backed by a source talking about gun shows in general, and not just one particular gun show experience. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wapo source above is much more a source about general flea market atmosphere (or banning of that atmosphere) and does not even mention jerky. If we want to say gun shows sell things other than guns, then that is fine (but probably not for the lede) but we should not be calling out particular products unless there is very good sourcing. In any case, this entire conversaion proably belongs on the talk page and not here. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with anything you say, but it should be in the body of the article, rather than the first line of the article, where it should give info on all the other sorts of things that are sold there. I went to go shows for a few years way back in the early 1990's, and I saw jerky, but I also saw extensive jewelry/pin/button sellers, knife sharpeners, etc etc - but all that is just my first person experience (and way outdated). the article you linked to would be fine for expanding on the various things sold - but the lede should simply say that many non-firearm items are also sold at shows, then go into details (briefly) in the body. It's a question of how much weight we give to something that - while interesting - isn't fundamental to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not trolling or joking. Probably just experiencing a different gun show culture. The gun show culture was noticeably different in the 90's than ten years ago, than over just the last 5 years. There are noticeable differences in gun show cultures across the US, as well as even within just single states. What I do find most interesting, though, is the very large number of traveling dealers that travel a regular circuit through several states, only selling their wares on the weekends, and repeating large looping circuits every 4 to 8 weeks. Some of these guys travel circuits amounting to 3,000+ miles every 4-8 weeks. These are most commonly and specifically the non-gun dealers! Gun dealers, on the other hand, typically only travel within just one state, due to FFL laws, or between a couple of states, in the few cases where gun dealers (with FFLs) have physical stores in each of the states. I do think we ought to include a little more of the culture of the modern gun show scene. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to article vis-à-vis "hand-" vs. "reloading."[edit]

In the article on handloading, I noted with interest your decision to delete an addition I made clarifying a highly misleading (though not terribly important) statement attributed to "McPherson" suggesting that "...handloads tend to be of generally high quality while reloads tend to be merely functional." If Mr. McPherson did indeed make such a statement, it is a profoundly vague generalization that, if taken at face value, can paint a false impression...certainly among the highly impressionable. For one thing, it does nothing to distinguish handloading from reloading. I note you are very well versed in myriad topics relating to firearms, and I suspect you are probably aware that serious competitors routinely use handloaded cartridges from cases previously fired in a given firearm; ie, they are actually using reloaded ammunition made from a previously fired case that is fireformed to the gun's chamber. In ammo so loaded, the previously fired cases are frequently neck sized only to provide sufficient tension to hold the bullet. Now, whether this practice does indeed provide superior cartridges, I believe, remains a topic of lively debate. But the fact is, it is a common practice, one I employ myself, and I can assure you these "reloads" are in no way inferior to carefully crafted "handloads" made from virgin brass. The statement is also puzzling in that, as is, it adds nothing to the article (except confusion). If anything it seems to imply a cultural distinction between the elite handloader and a sort of "blue-collar" reloader, who is merely interested in "function." The word "function" itself is odd as used. Is the "reloader" interested only in saving a buck? Content with his work as long as the gun goes "bang" when he pulls the trigger? Again, this matter is hardly worth quibbling over. But inasmuch as the observation attributed to McPherson raises more questions than it addresses, why include it at all? It seems to have been tossed in there casually for a purpose that escapes me. "At least one" person's casual observation, which I suspect might have been taken out of context, does little to inform, and in this case, is indeed misleading. And the clarifying text I added hardly requires authoritative referencing, any more than if I claimed that some people like Budweiser while others prefer to brew their own beer. Okay...not the greatest analogy, but it is widely understood, and indisputable.

This is not a dispute—it's not terribly important to me—but you strike me as an articulate, highly informed writer in this area, which is why your rationale for deleting my addition so puzzles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR Scriptor (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Spitzer[edit]

Please review the policy on living persons located at WP:BLP. Including information disputed by the subject that is sourced only to student newspapers and partisan commentators is highly questionable. Writing that information in Wikipedia's voice ("x is a y") is unacceptable. Please engage in discussions on the talk page as opposed to reverting. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hipocrite (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What edit war? Adding a cite is an edit war? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of the three revert rule before I told you about it? Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is dishonest. You did not merely "add a cite." Please be more careful with your edit summaries. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back and see that instead of adding a cite needed tag you removed a statement that was a summary of what is in the body text of the article. OK. So, I simply added a cite for the wording you had removed. I don't think adding a cite is engaging in an edit war. On the other hand, it appears that you are engaging in an edit war with the many editors of this article. Let's work together, OK? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of the three revert rule before I told you about it? I am happy to discuss on the talk page of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is stupid. The same thing happened on my talk page. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

racist[edit]

"Subhuman mongrel" and "chimpanzee" are not racist? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What race are they? How can such offensive name calling be called racist, when race is not even mentioned? No, these are not racist. They are just offensive and stupid. Offensive and stupid does not equate to being racist. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a black person subhuman and a chimpanzee is racist. There is really no other way to interpret it. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas calling George Bush the same names was not considered racist. No, it is clearly offensive, whomever is called such "outlandish" and "crude" names, but it is not racist, in any case. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it just means that Obama is now also being recognized as "Presidential", at least according to this article, along with Hillary and "W" Bush. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, please[edit]

Re: this edit [2] that I added with edit summary, "adding current, international overview info from GunPolicy.org," and that you modified [3] with the edit summary, "clean up extreme POV push; it is not civilians that are killing the majority of the people that die, but, rather, the governments with guns."

I meant absolutely NO POV push with that edit. I simply paraphrased the source, Global Impact of Gun Violence at gunpolicy.org. When I make mistakes - and of course I do - I'm glad to have them corrected, but the POV push comment was unnecessary and not WP:AGF. Of course the killings are done with civilian AND government owned guns (though I'll make no comment about who's doing the majority of it, since the source hasn't either).

Again, thanks for the correction, but in the future, can you keep the edit summary civil? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun safety[edit]

Thanks for your help on the Gun safety. It's looking a lot better now. Rezin (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun show loophole controversy[edit]

I was trying to get, in the first sentence, that the term is only used by those who want to restrict firearm sales. You removed that in this edit. It's grammatically better, but it lost important information. If that is in there, pejorative shouldn't be necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Miguel. Just wanted to let you know that I really tried to get a compromise going, but because of one person, it just went to hell. I hope this doesn't ruin the good faith I've been trying to build between us. Cheers. Darknipples (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. There are no problems between you and me. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a little breather. I have houseguests, but I feel we're so close on the article body. Then, we can flesh out and finish the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are close on the article as a whole. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peace[edit]

Regarding this edit summary: [4]. Can we keep out the parentheticals? I believe the wording was from some previous version and it's hard to say who wrote it. You improved the wording, that's great. The first part of your edit summary - going with what the article says - was sufficient, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to get your thanks for a few edits I made recently to the gun show loophole article, and I want to say again that I want gun rights POVs to get the weight they are due in gun control articles I work on. I may not always be the one to add such material (though I have, on many occasions), but I have nothing against its inclusion - from high-quality RS, properly weighted. Lightbreather (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, please[edit]

Please, please do not add things to the Gun show loophole article without good WP:V, WP:RS. Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have been trying to improve sources. One V, RS source categorized a failure of any bills to go to floor of Senate for Vote on the GSL as being non-existent bills. That now appears to be wrong. There were bills introduced, but they were shuttled off into committees and died an early death. Hence, the reason I have not inserted the source. Although meeting V and RS, the book has such poor editing that although meeting V and RS, it is still wrong. It happens. Poor scholarship? Perhaps. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have worked very hard to balance information in that article, but I believe your push to include the Patrick source is getting disruptive. As a peace offering, I have added it to the further reading section.

Patrick, Brian Anse (2010). Rise of the Anti-media: Informing America's Concealed Weapon Carry Movement. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 65. Retrieved February 6, 2015.

The author is an associate professor of communications, and the book is about concealed carry - not the gun show loophole. Also, his opinion on the GSL is pretty extreme. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His opinion is very common, and is not extreme. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding this "liberty" thing[5] you keep adding to the lead paragraph. 1) There is a whole paragraph in the lead (not the lead paragraph) about how gun rights advocates feel about the GSL. It is sourced within the body to Kopel, the NRA, and other recognized authorities on the gun rights side of the debate. To take what "Joe Olsen," head of a state gun rights group, says about GSLs and put it into the lead is UNDUE. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting in only one side of the opinion, from the BATF, is UNDUE and UNBALANCED. Providing balance, in terms of showing all major viewpoints, is a much better approach. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The results of that report isn't opinion. The NRA gives opinions. The Brady Campaign gives opinions. "Joe Olsen" from Montana gives opinions. "Jane Doe" from New York gives opinions. The lead paragraph is not for opinions. There is a paragraph for gun control advocates' opinions, and there is a paragraph for gun rights advocates opinions. The opinions put in those paragraphs are from recognized advocates - not "Joe Olsen" from Montana or "Jane Doe" from New York. Lightbreather (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

[6] FYI. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the FYI. Haven't been following this. The POV Railroad cabal appears to be hard at work, trying to ban all editors that counter their ownership of certain articles. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even when editors haven't edited any of those articles, they are suspected to have anyway, perhaps to intimidate? See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive. And suspicions continue that I'm Sue Rangell even as recently as yesterday![7]

This comment has apparently been removed from a contentious article [8] with it's suggestion to analyse this. EChastain (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choo, choo. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Reduced. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Yaf (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Miguel Escopeta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no Wikipedia policy that multiple relatives cannot all edit in many of the same space areas. Why is Wikipedia banning two different family members from both editing? (Yes, we both attended the Flying W ranch together. And, yes, a medical condition of a disease of a family member was edited by both accounts, as we both grew to know more about the disease. And, yes, we have similar mannerisms. Family members, related by blood, usually do. But, a closer look will show that, although we edit in many of the same areas, our interests are different, as evidenced by the relative numbers of edits in each of the similar categories, with higher concentrations of edits in different areas, despite overlapping in many of the same topics. Or, is it Wikipedia policy simply to ban all editors within a family who choose to edit in controversial areas and who are related by blood? Besides, the older, family member is largely absent from Wikipedia, being retired in real life as well as in Wikipedia terms. A passing comment in a phone call about an article to my mentor on Wikipedia does not seem worthy of a block as being a sock puppet. For him or me. (A phone call that he is blocked will come as a surprise, I'm sure.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is such a policy; see WP:FAMILY. Huon (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Miguel Escopeta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

WP:FAMILY pertains only to family who live in the same household and use the same Internet connection and computer. Neither of us uses the same Internet connection or computer. We do not even live in the same town. WP:FAMILY is not a valid reason for blocking two different editors who share some interests, who live in different towns, and who do not use the same computer or Internet connection. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This has been on hold for more than a month (!), and has been superseded by another unblock request below. So declining this procedurally, and will review the active unblock request in a moment. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator observation) There is also WP:MEAT, which states that you should not recruit people (whether related by blood or not) to support you. I doubt there was any intentional recruitment, but according to the investigation page, the edits are very similar... Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 15:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator response) But an indefinite block is highly unusual, even assuming (and I don't think we can assume that) the edits were made because of WP:MEAT, right? Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother. Oh BROTHER! This guy was told about the SPI by me and then by you, but he didn't bother to make any defense. He used both accounts for years to edit a number of articles, sometimes the same day. He ever said nothing about it then. But all of a sudden he's got a cockamammy excuse. There's no way in hell that two people are gonna share these kinds of similarities. Anyways, the editor is only blocked for a month, and then he can edit again using his original account. Felsic (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No defense was necessary, as I already knew that I was not a sock puppet. I thought that the investigation would show that we were not sock puppets. That was what should have occurred. Instead, I am now banned, with no account to edit from now, or in a month. Banning an editor who shares interests with another editor because of being assumed to be a sock puppet, on the basis of similar mannerisms, which is often the case between blood relatives, leaves me with no account. So, what do I do? I cannot open another account while my account is blocked, even in a month, as that would be evading a block. That is against the rules. I cannot use my relative's account, as that is his account, not mine. Besides, after this blow-up, I seriously doubt he will return to Wikipedia. He has apologized for getting me blocked. But, the damage is done. His blood pressure does not need the stress. He feels bad enough already, and I do not wish to stress him further. Seriously, in the last few years, my older relative only made a couple of edits, which were then the subject of a witch hunt by one editor, Felsic, to get me banned from Wikipedia. Well, guess it's working. I have no account to edit from now, or in a month, without breaking the rules for being an editor on Wikipedia. I could certainly post a message on my account page, that I share similar interests with my relative, with whom I have been assumed to be a sock puppet. Would that suffice to document this, so that future blocks for being a sock puppet would not result in another ban. I am willing to do that. (Not sure about my relative, as I don't think he is ever going to return to Wikipedia. Like I said, he doesn't need the stress at this point in his long life.) Besides, BROTHER is again, as in WP:FAMILY, assuming that "two" editors share the same computer and computer network. In this case, such "editors" or editors are indistinguishable. By Wikipedia policies, they are assumed, for all intents and purposes, as being the same editor, and rightfully so. As I have said previously, that is not the case in this issue. We don't even live in the same house any longer, not since I graduated from college. The Sock Puppet Investigation even verified that this was the case. Or, is it simply the goal to ban editors with whom an editor has a dispute, on the basis of a now years old similarities in editing interests. I did not ask my relative to edit the one article. He never asked me to edit any article, either. And, I seriously did not even think he would edit the article I mentioned in passing, as he retired from Wikipedia years ago. But, now, I am being banned for something which I did not even do. What happened to Assume Good Faith? Wikipedia policies are being trashed by this block. Sincerely, Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Miguel Escopeta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A decision is needed in this block. The block was issued strictly on the basis of similarities in mannerisms, and on the editing of but ONE article on one day within Wikipedia space. The SPI investigation showed that shared computers and shared computer networks were never used. Instead, the block was issued on the basis of a false assumption, that was made in the absence of assuming good faith, a core Wikipedia policy, that similarities in the articles of shared interest was sufficient to "prove" that the two accounts were sock puppets of each other. To counter this false assumption, I am willing to post a tag on my page that I am not a sock puppet of Yaf, and Yaf is not a sock puppet of mine. That way, future confusion will not occur, and transparency, another core Wikipedi policy, can be maintained. Otherwise, I cannot open another account in a month when the block on Yaf ends, as I am still being blocked, and opening another account would be evading a block on me. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I disagree with your assessment. From my perspective, you were blocked as a sockpuppet, but it turns out you're a meatpuppet. In this context, I don't consider that your proposed solution goes far enough. PhilKnight (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I know very little about sockpuppet checkuser data, or the merits of the WP:DUCK evidence that resulted in this block. This account was checkedusered and the results were found inconclusive by DoRD. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaf/Archive. Despite lots of evidence proved by Felsic, WP:DUCK was not found persuasive. After Lightbreather added her couple of diffs[9] [10] about two hours apart to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution [11], it was found conclusive enough for this block. Lightbreather has previously accused others of being sockpuppets who edit, or she thinks they edit, articles relating to US gun control. e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/North8000/Archive on 1 February 2015, where she accused Faceless Enemy of being a sock of North8000. based on their edits to Gunshow loophole, even though she and another editor made almost all of the edits to that page.[12] She then tried to reopen this SPI with multiple posts on Mike V's page.[13], finishing on Mike V's page with "I might add, if FE is not N8, then I think they are likely some other editor who has been topic-banned from GC. Lightbreather 3:53 pm, 9 February 2015, Monday (17 days ago) (UTC−5). Lightbreather has recently gotten off a six month topic ban herself.Discretionary sanction for Gun control 2
She had done the same thing to me, reopening a case closed on flimsy evidence, when I've never edited gun control articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive
Also like to note that Felsic, who opened this SPI, was originally blocked as an an open proxy User:162.119.231.132 but through Lightbreather's intervention with Mike V, was able to get an account based on her reasoning: "Unless this IP editor has done something wrong, they should be unblocked." See User talk:162.119.231.132. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: What solution, in your estimation, would go far enough? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An agreement not to edit the same pages. PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I agree not to edit the same pages as Yaf also edits going forward. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you make a new unblock request which includes this. PhilKnight (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: OK. Have submitted a new unblock request which includes this. (See below). Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: isn't that a bit drastic for what, at worst, amounts to offline canvasing? Isn't a more typical block for canvassing something on the order of 24 hours? It may also be very difficult to comply with if their interests overlap at all. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so. I consider that the problems run deeper than simple off line canvassing. PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: So, is this simply a way for you to suppress content, then, with which you do not agree? I have been a long term contributor to Wikipedia, with many notable edits. Is this simply a way to suppress content in Wikipedia? Or what? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight:So what do you mean, exactly? If you think that ME is a sockpuppet of Yaf, then ME should not be unblocked at all, whether or not he discloses his relationship with Yaf or edits the same pages - sockpuppets are to be blocked indefinitely. If you mean that he has violated other policies, then shouldn't that be discussed over at ANI, rather than in the context of this block? Your proposed solution doesn't really seem to fit either of those scenarios and, again, seems incredibly easy to run afoul of. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Miguel Escopeta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agree not to edit the same pages as Yaf edits going forward. That should address all concerns. I will speak to Yaf, and make sure he does not edit the same pages as I have edited, going forward, too. That was what caused this block in the first place. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

per conditions below. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V and PhilKnight: I'm sort of inclined to accept this unblock request contingent on the two accounts never editing the same articles/talk pages. Phil, this seems to meet the criterion you proposed above. Any objection? It's been almost a month, I'd like to get this page off of CAT:UNBLOCK. My only hesitation is that above, after accepting the limitation, he goes on to call this subject-based censorship, which strikes me as extraordinarily tone-deaf. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. PhilKnight (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the belated response, but I'm fine with the unblock below as per the conditions. Mike V • Talk 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam:, isn't that going to be really tough to comply with? If Yaf edited a page back in 2010, is ME banned from touching it? I'm also a little surprised at this sort of permanent sanction for stealth canvassing - the last block I saw for canvassing (on-wiki, not stealth) was for 24h, and the unblock did not include any condition that the canvasser and canvassee avoid the same articles in the future. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to be required to disclose their relationship on their user pages, as well as in any TP discussion? That would seem to mitigate the possibility for inappropriate consensus building. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not black and white, it's grey and fuzzy. We don't know if this is the same person (as originally suspected, and still quite possible), or family members with a history of stealth canvassing to support each other in disputes (my best guess), or family members with very, very similar interests (as claimed by ME). So the idea "block with no hope of unblock if it's socking, and slap on the wrist if it's similar interests" doesn't work well. This solution works best because (a) it isn't horrible no matter which of the three is true, and (b) it's the best solution if the most likely (IMHO) is true. Plus, ME agreed to it above.

ME, so we're clear:

You're limited to one account, no alternate accounts regardless of what [WP:LEGIT]] says.
You can edit any article or talk page as long as Yaf has not edited it on 1 January 2015 or later.

If Yaf returns to significant editing, this could be a bother to keep track of; you'll need to check to see if Yaf has edited it later than 2014. I'm sorry about that, but that's how it needs to work.
If Yaf does not return to editing, then this is really no restriction at all.

With that, I'll unblock momentarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Thank you. So, it appears that the only article that I am prohibited from editing going forward is Gun show loophole, as that is the only article since Jan 1, 2015 edited by Yaf. Understood. As for Yaf, I don't think he will return to editing, but that is up to him. I will mention that any article he edits will automatically become articles from which I will be prohibited from editing going forward, though. It is going to be a nuisance for me to have to check each time before I edit an article to make sure he hasn't edited the article. But, at this point in life, I doubt he will do any editing. His blood pressure doesn't need the stress. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: makes sense, thanks. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Politics Task Force proposal[edit]

You might be interested in this once your block is removed. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll think about it. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning[edit]

Do not ping Lightbreather again. If you do, I will block you indefinitely. Smug gravedancing is not on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. -- Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arming America[edit]

Is this really a credible source? I mean, a book that left its creator resigning his tenured post should not be cited without a note saying that it's known to be partially fraudulent. Even if he published a version that corrected the obvious fraud people found (I don't know that he has) it needs a disclaimer that nobody should read editions up to the Xth edition. Blythwood (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The errors have been corrected, but this is more detail than needed in the article. I now concur that it is best to remove the cite. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Knob Creek Gun Range shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also note that your 3RR warning on my talk page was without merit, as I had only reverted twice. You have reverted three times. I informed you a way to get consensus on project settings in projects where you are not a member. Instead, you are choosing to engage in an edit conflict. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted 3 times from the prior consensus. I merely restored the prior consensus content. It is you have started an edit war, changing the importance of Knob Creek Range in some claimed relevance to WP Louisville, which is in Jefferson County, more than 30 miles away. Knob Creek Range is in Bullitt County, from the prior consensus. This article should be judged on the basis of its notability within its field of content, not relative to Louisville, which is not even where KCR is located. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I made a change of settings which is my right to do as a member of WP Kentucky and WP Louisville (and you're not), then reverted your revert twice. WP Louisville is about the Louisville metropolitan area, including Bullitt County. These importance settings have nothing to do with the field of interest (guns, shooting, etc.). These are settings within wide geographical projects. Again, unless you are a member, you have no business insisting on what these values are. As I said already, if you want to bring this up on the projects' talk pages and get a consensus, feel free. But until then, it is my decision that the importance is Low, and that's how the article will be treated no matter how it's marked on the talk page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Felsic2 (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SIG MCX". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 August 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning SIG MCX, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Assault Weapon[edit]

Hello Miguel Escopeta, please see talk page for Assault Weapon regarding your revert. Thank youCuriousMind01 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have responded there. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal use of firearms[edit]

ME, you keep referring to the section of WP:GUNS about criminal use as a "guideline" or "policy", even though it is neither. Also, you just said that there's a consensus in favor of it. Can you show me where or when that consensus was formed? Felsic2 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was formed years ago, when WP was much much younger, and was written as a guideline and policy prior to the Wikipedia Firearms interest group by many early editors to WP, who then originally formed the Firearms interest group and included the wording in what exists today. Several of those editors are now deceased. (I knew them personally, outside WP, but that is irrelevant.) It has stood the test of time rather well, and the guideline was put in place to avoid the addition of cruft and pop culture, and also was set in place to avoid the attempt to try to set mass killing records that would only become goals to be beaten by later shooters. All these things were discussed at the time. Much of the discussion was done via email, too, specifically not on discussion pages, in order to avoid leaving traces for madmen to find later, as I recall hearing about at the time. But, that was a long, long time ago. May those early editors who have already gone on to their just rewards Rest In Peace. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about their passing. Wikipedia still seems like such a new thing, but I guess it's been around long enough for some to grow old editing it. Do you know if anyone else from that discussion is still active? Felsic2 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Firearms Project[edit]

Welcome! Can't believe you're just joining now, I always thought you were a member. I look forward to your collaborations and positive edits! Regards!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding[edit]

Miguel Escopeta, for over a year now the bulk of your editing has been following me around Wikipedia and opposing my edits. While edits within your area of interest, firearms, are possibly justifiable, when you follow me to unrelated areas it takes on the appearance of WP:harassment:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.

Since this activity has been accompanied by personal attacks, tendentious editing, and other disruptive behavior, I am formally requesting that you stop it immediately. Felsic2 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felsic2, Hounding can be a serious issue but for the charge to stick (so to speak) the edits must be at the expense of Wikipedia. When people look at many of your gun related edits it's easy to see how they can be concerned. Just the other day you restored a comedy show PR stunt involving the NRA to a section called "Criticism". You failed to explain how the PR stunt was "criticism" vs just propaganda. Edits like that have resulted in some editors questioning your editorial judgment. That would suggest that you should also review your own posting style. Springee (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was also just accused on hounding. I guess it was crazy to think that rejecting what looks to me like just tarring the NRA (rather than legit commentary) was problematic.[[14]]. RAF910 has raised concerns about some of this. I will give Felsic that he is willing to talk but I don't agree with the idea of trying to pack negative information or facts into articles in cases where it comes across as tarring or taking a negative bit part and trying to make it a big part of the topic. This came up with two automotive articles (the additions were soundly rejected after an RfC [[15]]. I also see it in some of the recent KKK and related additions to article pages about towns and counties. I'm not interested enough in those articles to get involved but in most cases it seems like someone who wants to pack pet topics into various articles. When you are accusing several editors of hounding perhaps you need to ask if perhaps the issue is with you. Still, to end this on a high note, Felsic2 is at least willing to talk and I've seen more than a few examples of trying to better integrate information into the flow of an article. Happy T day. Springee (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss each other's editing on our respective talk pages. My posting here concerns Miguel Escopeta. Felsic2 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miguel Escopeta: You have again followed me to articles to revert my editing, in one case restoring unsourced material.[16][17] Again, I request that you stop following me around Wikipedia. Felsic2 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is especially odd since a few years ago you were insisting that air guns are not firearms.[18] That makes it appear that this edit was done just to contradict me. Felsic2 (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again.[19] I'm repeating my request that you please stop following me around to revert or oppose my edits. Felsic2 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And again.[20] It looks like you are routinely checking my contributions list for things to revert. I've asked you many times to stop doing this. Please see WP:HOUNDING. I believe you are violating Wikpedia policy. Felsic2 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Miguel Escopeta. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your change to Shotgun Slugs is incorrect[edit]

Your change is incorrect. I refer you to the Brenneke slug which is fired from shotguns to illustrate that what I said is correct.

Rifled Slug Digitallymade (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the changes I made are not incorrect. Rather, the changes you made are incorrect. Looks like I will have to add real cites. OK. Just takes longer. That's all. Editors should really stay on topics they actually have knowledge of. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and since you are incorrect in this, I expect you to explain the Brenneke slug and how it works in the smoothbore barrels of a shotgun. I know perfectly well what you are thinking of, but you didn't specify correctly that YOU were thinking of rifled slug guns. They are not the same. Digitallymade (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, and your recent comments on this discussion were refreshingly clear, comprehensive, and well-written. As a former teacher, I admire your ability and willingness to teach this material. As much as I may have been dragged kicking and screaming from the vocabulary of my youth, I recognize the importance of keeping abreast of modern usage of terms like weapon. I thought you might enjoy this anecdote: One of my high-school teachers was a truly gifted mathematician who was teaching in rural Maine only because it was the most remote location he could find to provide social education for his children born and raised in the remote Chilean Andes where he was operating a Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. He had retreated from civilization while suffering what we might now recognize as post-traumatic stress disorder from his participation in World War II. He was a Quaker having great difficulty coming to terms with the military obligations he had assumed after being drafted. As one of his more promising students, I was privileged to have a few opportunities when he shared some personal observations with me. One of the most memorable was his professed belief that the world would be a better place if all weapons were outlawed. Recognizing the potential use of numerous objects as weapons, I asked how he would define a weapon. He admitted he couldn't formulate a useful definition; and that inability in such a gifted individual made a lasting impression which comes to mind whenever someone gets unexpectedly creative with a chain saw, box cutter, jet aircraft, gasoline tank truck, or swimming pool chlorine. Thank you for presenting the issue in such clear and focused detail. Thewellman (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Miguel Escopeta. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No censoring[edit]

You reverted my edit on Gun violence in the United States. I removed a cutesy historical cartoon at the top of the article and replaced it with a picture of a memorial from the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. If you cannot acknowledge the realities of gun violence, that is your problem, but you cannot censor Wikipedia per WP:NOTCENSORED. Please do not revert my edit again. Darkest Tree Talk 22:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not censoring, but providing historical context. See my detailed comment/response in the talk page for Gun violence in the United States. Note: it is not a "cutesy historical cartoon", but what was used as a newspaper illustration, published as news, at the time of the assassination. Obviously, there were no cell phones with built-in cameras at the time of this presidential assassination, and hence no real-time videos such as would likely be existing today for a modern assassination. The image was done "back in the day" to impart knowledge to a literate, newspaper-reading, public audience. Similar to the audience that one would expect to use an encyclopedia, today. Hence, it appears suitable. Not the only image, obviously, that could be used, though. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gun use essay[edit]

That new essay was moved by an editor who is likely a HughDv sock.Springee (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, the reason I posted the notice to give it proper scrutiny by the community at large. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's a sock editor I would reverse it per WP:deny. When I get a chance I'll submit the report. Springee (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential advocacy[edit]

The edits came across as promotional / non-neutral and I have reverted them:

At National Rifle Association: "the cite is all that is needed here for readers to determine veracity". This is incorrect; attribution is required for statements that are sourced to the org.

At Friends of NRA: "Restore article". The org's own website and various press releases are WP:SPIP sources and are not suitable for extensive sourcing in this article.

Per the ArbCom case that you were notified about, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Advocacy: "Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited."

Please keep that in mind while editing these sensitive topics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not intended for advocacy, just citing NPOV fact. Numerous published sources all claim the same 5 Million plus number, for NRA membership totals. This fact should be NPOV. Being a private organization, the membership number is only available from the NRA. If such NPOV facts are only available from private organizations who actually know their own membership roll numbers, I fail to see how this can be considered as being promotional. But, if the thought of 5,000,000+ proponents of the Bill of Rights is considered promotional, or non-neutral, OK. But, I respectfully disagree. Incidentally, the NRA added roughly another million members over the last couple weeks. And, the number is still growing fast. It may end up at 1.5 Million additional members by the end of this week. A neutral view should be factual, too. But, if you wish to denigrate civil rights organizations, that viewpoint is also subject to the ARBCOM ruling, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NRA Black/LGBT Support[edit]

At Talk:National Rifle Association, you mentioned that the NRA has provided education to freed slaves, single moms who happen to be black and LGBTQ individuals in the wake of tragedy. I'm interested in adding this information to the article as it would add balance and show how the NRA contributes to the community beyond political advocacy. Do you have any sources that you'd be willing to share? Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colt AR-15 / AR-15 style rifle article split[edit]

I'm reaching out to active editors who were involved with the discussions related to the split of the AR-15 topic into two primary articles (Here [[21]], here[[22]], other?). I somewhat recall the discussions leading to this split. What I don't recall is where all the discussions took place. I've linked to a discussion on the Colt AR-15 talk archive but I recall discussions occurring in other locations. I was hoping to get some suggestions for finding those other discussions. I'm doing this because I'm trying to understand the intended scope of the AR-15 style rifle article [[23]]. Was it meant to be just "clones" of the Colt AR-15 or also include derivative rifles (different operating mechanisms etc)? Also what other article names were considered and why. Thanks for any suggestions you might have. Springee (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Miguel Escopeta. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Mark Levin[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by WP:BRD. If you want to add content that has been challenged, seek consensus for it. So far, you haven't even bothered to participate on the talk page of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have reverted your edits. It is you who are engaged in an edit war. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's only you and another editor (Dcflyer). It's been removed by I and another editor (Gamaliel). Seek consensus for your version per WP:BRD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mark Levin; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please read WP:BRD and take your issues to the talk page rather than edit warring with other users. Toa Nidhiki05 17:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of balance with this article is amazing. There are other editors who have attempted to balance this article to NPOV. Yet, a minority of editors have tag-teamed to revert to an unbalanced POV hit piece on Levin. This is not how WP is supposed to work. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]