User talk:PistolPower

Welcome![edit]

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Adrian Lamo ·· 10:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? How did you do all that? That is crazy! Are you this good at this code? Wow. I am... amazed. --PistolPower 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things on Wikipedia that seem complex are actually pretty simple, and there are shortcuts for just about everything. I invite you to check out the links above; I've also replied to your message on my talk page.

Adrian Lamo ·· 10:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE[edit]

ADAPT THE FOLLOWING CODE WHEN YOU ARE UNBANNED:

My Babel File

The English Wikipedia has 6,822,842 articles and 917,379 files.

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

User:Cool Cat/CVU1-1

This user does not feed trolls.

Hist

This user is a Historian.

AmE-0

This person dislikes American 'English' (common grammatical and spelling errors mistaken for dialect).

This user has a temper.

This user is a Gaelic Football fan

This user uses Hiberno-English.

King

This user is a descendant of Irish High King Brian Boru. (So is most of Ireland and Queen Elizabeth II.)

DP

This user opposes the Deletion Police and their wrecking of Wikipedia.

Nic

Nill illigitimi carborundum.

This user supports userboxes .

This user is opposed to the House of Saud.

This user believes Wikipedia's deletion policy is out of control and needs redesigning.

This user believes Wikipedia's copyright policy is inaccurate in law, counterproductive in implementation and needs professional re-examination.

ZZZ

This user is bored making boxes and is going to bed

Help[edit]

Do you need help in some way?--Ali K 12:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am trying to get sectioning/spacing right. I want the 'Personal' and 'Grammtical' subsections to be inferior to the general section but on the same level. I don't want Grammatical to be an inferior of Personal. I want them to be seperate items. Sorry if this is a rather hard task, but I really don't see how Wikipedia exactly determines the hierarchy of text/etc. --PistolPower 12:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The contents list shows Personal as 2.1 and Grammatical as 2.2 but the actual appearance is off. The two aren't seperate and seem to stick together/intermesh in a strange way. PistolPower 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you referring to?--Ali K 12:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page. I would also like to know how I could have the various boxes listed in rows of three or maybe four and not all in one long line. PistolPower 12:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better?--Ali K 12:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what's with that template message now? That is very annoying. --PistolPower 12:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template message?--Ali K 12:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I see.--Ali K 12:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, on my userpage there is a long line and a message stating that this template is marked for deletion, etc. etc. and it throw off the spacing/positioning even further. I find this whole postion thing very difficult. It happens randomly. --PistolPower 12:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Socialism and Communism[edit]

What you're saying may be true, but it's called POV which is to be avoided in Wikipedia. Adam78 00:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stressed?[edit]

I'm sorry to see you're stressed. Here, have a cup of coffee! Let me know if I can help with anything (though I'm not an admin). --F a ng Aili 04:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you're not that stressed. I should take your lead and not let online life get to me. :) --F a ng Aili 15:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get stressed now and then. The userbox war is getting really annoying. --F a ng Aili 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and about boxing. I've done a little before and I liked it; it's a fantastic workout. I also used to do martial arts. I belonged to a wonderful dojo in California, but then I moved and couldn't find a new dojo I liked. So lately I've just been doing the dancing. --F a ng Aili 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zap![edit]

The coffee here is OK, but don't let anyone offer you a scone.

How's stuff?

User:Adrian/zap 07:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, good. Just happily tracerouting the IP's of potential competition/troublemakers. Muhahaha. How are you? --PistolPower 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the folks here mean well if you give 'em a chance. You don't have to agree with them, but you can still help them to build great content :) Glad you're enjoying yourself. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EU[edit]

Your comments in Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Move cartoons down the page to reduce offense?:

Let me be the first to add: The EU is a joke. It is simply going to drag not one or two countries into a serious economic depression but every single full-member nation. Great idea! Cause a whole continent to suffer! Yeah! Alright! Go EU! --PistolPower 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may, or may not be correct. But I'm not sure how that is possibly relevent to the ongoing discussion. But cheer up; it will be nothing like the economic depression the Yanks are sucking themselves into! Nfitz 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the EU one will affect a lot more people and you know that the urban slums will not like having their welfare checks cut back on... --PistolPower 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"detachable clip"[edit]

Do you suppose they meant "drop-free magazine"? (and yes, I find the use of "clip" to be rather irritating myself...) aa v ^ 23:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually find myself at a loss as far as getting a truly good entry for "magazine type". We should find a happy panacea for that rather varying entry. The US Army's Fact File for the M9 pistol says: "The M9 has a 15-round staggered magazine with a reversible magazine" (Army Fact File M9. Of course this is just one random entry. Staggered magazine? I think specifying double stack vs. the "one-and-a-half" stack is better. Esp. since what is the non-staggered magazine called? Just that? Why not single stack? I think the inclusion of 'box' as a prefix to magazine might be warranted as in: 'the M1911 has a 7/8 round single stack box magazine'. Why? Well, I don't recall any non-box magazine shapes at the moment but perhaps revolvers that must use moon-clips (.45 ACP revolvers if I recall correctly) might be considered to be "rotary clip fed" or something. I dunno. The USMC by the way only specifies it as a semi-automatic, double-action pistol with a magazine holding 15 9mm rounds. So, what do we do? --PistolPower 07:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MarkSweep[edit]

I deleted your comment there. Please be civil and refrain from personal attacks on Wikipedia. If you can rephrase your objection without violating those two, please do so. Thanks. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's much better. Cheers. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its better, but not much better. PistolPower, hatred is an evil emotion, and expressing hatred is harmful to your own health, as well as the psyche of others. At Wikipedia, we are engaged in creating an encyclopedia. This is not the place to tell the world that you hate the US, the EU, or that you hate yourself or anyone else. Please take a few moments to deal with your anger, and do take the effort to find within your soul a better person. linas 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want hatred? Linas, please go and kill yourself. I didn't ask for your commentary so get the FUCK lost, you touchy-feely liberal asshole. You seriously think this is a serious encylopedia? Wikipedia is by FAR the most biased, POV, and most poorly written encylopedia ever when it comes to anything other than scientific articles. Wikipedia is full of liberal POV and redundant, pointless, and clearly asinine articles. For example, you could never ever cite Wikipedia as a primary source. So, again, please go to hell and die. You could have made your point far better by not shitting on my talk page, asshole. --PistolPower 18:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not a liberal, I am a conservative. (I happen to be a conservative who is very strongly anti-Bush and anti-Republican Party; these people have twisted the meaning of the word "conservative" so that it is an Orwellian lie). Secondly, I am not shitting on your talk page, I am asking you to conduct yourself in a civil manner with respect to the other human beings around you. You have now violated the WP policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks twice (attacking me, and attacking User:MarkSweep) in less than 24 hours. That is wrong. Stop. linas 19:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cry me a river. At least you are decent enough to see that the GOP and Bush have twisted the true meaning of conservatism to suit their own ends. --PistolPower 19:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Please remind me, but this is the internet right, so if I feel up to it, I can insult you all day long, right? I thought as much.[reply]

...Then why on earth are you here? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few reasons. One, I am a reformed vandal, and have enjoyed carrying out a few minor and major edits and a new entry or two. Two, I notice that Wikipedia is, despite all you efforts, very much unlike an encyclopedia (which is why it cannot be cited) because POV is pervasive and Wikipedia is very much not encyclopedic. I see the primary cause of this being more or less well-masked liberal POV pushing and quaint little slaps in the face to any reader who is slightly less than a raving mad neo-socialist, communist, anarchist, anti-theist, new-age, weed smoking hippy who happens to dabble in pedophilia and necrophilia or anyone other combination of such really obscure and really weird, ummm, ideologies/fetishes/crazy business [?]. I see liberal POVs being pushed all the time. Well, guess what? Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up. Here is. --PistolPower 21:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

Hi PistolPower, I just wanted to express some concern about the incivility of your recent edits, like this one. Please keep the civility policy in mind in your future editing. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to express your opinion in this matter. I will chose to heed it, but you must understand that selective deletion of userboxes to push a certain POV while letting others demonstrating the opposite POV be, is, I think, for an admin, a serious offense. --PistolPower 01:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but that's irrelevant. Your language in that edit was not acceptable for use on Wikipedia in any context, period. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me? No, I am sorry, are you talking TO ME? Who are you again? I don't recall you introducing yourself. You, as a fellow Wikipedian, may SUGGEST or ADVISE that do or do not do something, but you cannot ORDER me around. Leave that to the administrators. I am already discussing this with TWO of them, so I would be delighted if you let them take care of this and go bother someone else. --PistolPower 01:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PistolPower, you are attracting some attention to yourself. This is a community of editors, and there are standards that are applied to all of us. I ask you, have you read any of the applicable policies, such as WP:CIVIL, and related materials? Please, reconsider the harsh tone you are taking with your fellow Wikipedians. I note that you are very new, and perhaps you just need some mild instruction. If I can be of assitance to you in any way, please feel free to ask. But hostility and attacking prose will not be tolerated, by myself, or any administrators who are diligent in their duty. Please tone down your rhetoric, and you will find that others will freely give of their time and perhaps even come to respect you for your excellent contributions to Wikipedia. Sometimes, all it takes is a breath of fresh air, and a little time for some sober reflection on what we wish to say in response to other editors. I would hate to see you banned for a rash and ill thought statement, made in the heat of the moment, as sometimes happens in discussions like the one you are engaged in. If you feel the dispute is serious, there are remedies for mediation that can be enacted, and even experienced editors who may be willing to advocate for your positon, as long as it does not contravene applicable Wikipedia policies and proceedures. Again, please feel free to ask for any assitance. If I can help, it would be a pleasure for me. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 01:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I understand. I will take up that offer; you can help me: Delete the following POV userbox categories, as if I am not allowed to have my POV represented in these categories, then no one should for the sake of consistentcy is deleting POV userboxes:

Thanks... --PistolPower 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using Wikipedia for approx. 6 months, and I have less than 10 items that I have personally put up for deletion. They were all articles, and not user box templates/catagories. I have however been making some inquiries as to the method and proper proceedure for putting material such as you have listed to a process of gathering consensus for their possible deletion. Slightly out of my realm of expertise. As soon as I am informed of how to proceed I will do so and notify you here. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed -- I apologize if I seemed abrupt, but given the trend shown by the other notices on this talk page, I wanted to impress upon you the seriousness with which Wikipedia regards its civility policies. So, apologies and I look forward to working with you. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I apologize for spreading so much of my vitriol all around and getting THREE admins involved in this. I will be more diplomatic in the future. --PistolPower 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to my talk page[edit]

Your post to my talk page was a breach of a few Wikipedia policies, including civility. Please stop that or you could be blocked. Thank you. Wyss 02:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What post? Seriously? --PistolPower 16:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for 48 hours for your blatant incivility towards other editors. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*smacks forehead* CHRIST JESUS PistolPower! Look, it's obvious to anyone that's watching that you have really frackin' strong feelings about a number of topics, but being rude to other editors -- and rude is a very polite understatement here -- comes in dead last on the list of ways to make a positive difference here.

Hey, you're doing leaps and bounds better now than you were before you registered, but, when your block expires, please strongly consider talking to me before you piss off everyone in shouting distance. I'm here to help, and I'm happy to do so, but I can't if you get yourself blocked before I even have a clue you're having differences with someone.

Look forward to seeing 'ya back. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jtkiefer has been nice enough to indulge me and reduce your block to 31 hours. Please don't pick up where you left off at the expiration of this block. Shoot me a message when you're active again :)

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was well worth the ride to see those children get their panties up in a bunch. I have proven once and for all that Wikipedia is biased. No doubt about it. --PistolPower 16:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you're not helping yourself. You're not here to antagonize others. If you feel individuals are biased, you need to file that under "not your problem". If you feel articles are biased, you're welcome and encouraged to bring them in line with WP:NPOV. But this is not Usenet, we do not flame war, and blatant, egregious attempts to antagonize, insult, and hurt other people are unacceptable and wrong. If other Wikipedia users are unduly thin-skinned, it's not OK to take advantage of that fact. If you disagree with them, argue on the merits of the facts and leave the person alone.

If you're permanently blocked -- and that's not far in your future at this rate -- you won't be contributing anything to Wikipedia, so if there is a systemic liberal bias here, there won't be a darn thing you can do about it. I think you have a lot to say, and it would be a loss to Wikipedia if you were unable to contribute. I encourage you in the strongest terms to take the higher road, stay and help out, and not get yourself kicked off of here because you lost track of the line between attacking ideas and attacking people.

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, PistolPower. We exchanged some messages a while back. I second what Adrian is saying. You have to tone down your behavior if you don't want to get banned permenantly. You can challenge another user's edits, but not that user personally. Civil behavior is an absolute requirement on Wikipedia. Use your passion to edit articles! --F a ng Aili 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered WP:TIGERS. Perhaps you'll have a read. --F a ng Aili 23:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theft is illegal. Even in cyberspace.[edit]

You, as a font of gaston glock knowledge, should have your own glocks to photograph, yes?

Copyrighted images[edit]

I've deleted Image:G19od-right-full.jpg and Image:P226-plain-left-full.jpg. Please do not claim authorship of images that are not your own in future. Shimgray | talk | 17:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]