User talk:Scalhotrod/Archive 22
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
A favor, maybe
Since we seem to have forged something of an understanding, would you mind editing or striking some of these comments? It would be appreciated. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Lightbreather (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- So I took a look at each one and the first question I have is why? What would it accomplish? Given that nothing is ever completely erased from Wikipedia, this could be perceived as an odd move on my part because 1) you've made this request and 2) there are more than a few Editors make accusations of collusion or "teaming up" to push a POV or other agenda based on something like this.
- In regard to the last item [7], this is part of the record of an ArbCom proceeding. Even if an edit or strike is permissible, I am not in favor of changes like this. If I expect others to be judged on their behavior as indicated by the WP records, then I must stand up to the same scrutiny. I've had what I consider far worse said about and to me by other (often very Senior) Editors and Admins. I've also had Editors and Admins come to my defense because of my comments and history of edits and actions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because it would be a nice thing to do, Scal. You made personal comments on an article talk page [8] and the others were accusations without diffs. Although we "made up" (so to speak), those things are still floating around for other editors to read - and possibly think the less of me for having read them. I'm not gonna twist your arm, but a little redaction would demonstrate good faith, that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm... Interesting approach. You start with an emotional appeal and then start citing WP policy followed by guidelines for your proposed redaction and a request to demonstrate good faith. But I've already demonstrated good faith. I was the one that reached out to you with the Olive branch, which you thanked me for, and I am making the effort to understand your viewpoints so that we can work together. Yet, you want more my part and as far as I am aware, I have not seen any reciprocity on your part.
- As for what others see, it never goes away. None of your appearances in ANI or any other formal process ever disappears from scrutiny except by primarily the new and/or un-experienced Users who do not know how to find it.
- But in the spirit of compromise, I am willing edit this entry. Since it is part of a closed RfC, I have asked Number 57, who closed it, if this is permissible. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Scal, it was a simple request, but you asked "why," so I gave some policy reasons, which is (I think) what most editors are looking for when they ask "why." When I read old talk pages and I see someone's comments redacted, I know that he/she changed his/her mind about what he/she wrote. As I said, I'm not going to twist your arm. If you don't want to do it - don't. I just think it would have been a nice thing to do. But if you still want that stuff floating around out there unredacted, more power to ya. I'm not going to ask why. Lightbreather (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because it would be a nice thing to do, Scal. You made personal comments on an article talk page [8] and the others were accusations without diffs. Although we "made up" (so to speak), those things are still floating around for other editors to read - and possibly think the less of me for having read them. I'm not gonna twist your arm, but a little redaction would demonstrate good faith, that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Didn't I just agree with your request? I intend to make a change, but I'm not willing to violate policy at your request so I asked for clarification from the Admin involved. And I agree that it's a nice thing to do, but as the policy that you linked to also says, changes should not be made when it might affect the subsequent context of the discussion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- If I misunderstood you, I apologize. All I see there is "But in the spirit of compromise, I am willing edit this entry," with a link to one item. It seemed you were willing to redact those personal comments in that one item, which would be nice, but the others are the accusations without diffs, and those are more (potentially) damaging. Lightbreather (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, accepted... :) Interesting though, from my perspective (granted I know what I was thinking when I made the comments) I view it completely opposite. The other comments (especially the ones without difs) are personal opinions and likely in my experience to be completely dismissed by other Editors. If someone wants to build a case against you, they look to your direct actions/edits, not the opinion of others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- (imagine we're having a beer and I give you an elbow in your side) Then you won't mind if I start peppering my comments with, "Scal, you have ownership issues," and "That Scal canvasses and vote stacks," - right? ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, heck no. I'm way thicker skinned than that... :) The thing that I try to remember is that if one person says something less than positive, its fairly easy to write it off as a "rant" (unless its backed with numbers), or, possibly something as simple as someone "having a bad day" that coincided with my edit, or, I just completely misinterpreting their comment (what they "wrote" versus what they "meant"). I've learned that responding to it often just makes it worse, all some people need to pursue an issue, is acknowledgement. In fact, sometimes its best to wait a bit and see if someone else responds first to criticism, not just in my defense, but with another relevant point or fact, something I had not considered. Nub has done this on your behalf and as long as his points are well made and logical, its great support for your stance. Of course if a known WikiNut backs you, it can backfire as well. My point is, just because someone says something that you feel is directed at you, don't ever feel that you must respond.
- (imagine we're having a beer and I give you an elbow in your side) Then you won't mind if I start peppering my comments with, "Scal, you have ownership issues," and "That Scal canvasses and vote stacks," - right? ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, accepted... :) Interesting though, from my perspective (granted I know what I was thinking when I made the comments) I view it completely opposite. The other comments (especially the ones without difs) are personal opinions and likely in my experience to be completely dismissed by other Editors. If someone wants to build a case against you, they look to your direct actions/edits, not the opinion of others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if multiple people say that same thing (or close) and its across several articles (especially if they are topic related), then I interpret that as a really good opportunity to do a self review and try to look at the situation from other perspectives. The WP User community chews up and spits out new editors on a regular basis regardless of "Don't bite the newbies" and such. Wait long enough and circumstances can totally change. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration clarification request(Gun control :Gaijin42)
An arbitration amendment request(Gun control :Gaijin42), which either involved you, or in which you commented, has been archived, because the request was declined.
The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Warning about Lightbreather
I have thouroughly investigated the complaint lightbreather made against you. I have noticed that she has done this regularly recently to other gun issue editors. My conclusion she is likely gaming the system to maintain ownership and to throw NPOV out the window. Be very cautious when she asks you to do something as it may be used against you by her or a set up. I have commented on the original complaint. I have no pull as your Wikibigotry article illuminates due to being an IP but have attempted to promote some fairness here. Hopefully some unbiased admin will look over Lightbreather very closely and set her straight. I also investigated you as well. I found out from above you like to collect old panel vans. We had one on the farm for storage that was I believe a 57' Metro and yellow. Unfortunately it is long gone. Why collect cab over vans? I have a 73' Super C20Cheyenne with a built 454 and 4.10 rear end. However it is quite heavy with a 1 ton rear. Also owned a 4X4 Burb with 383 stroker with roller rockers and roller cam. It was a bat out of hell for a lifted Mudder with 35's but I gave it to my brother in law who desparately needed wheels for his young family (he was the baby and my wife was 12 years older and well I was nearly 20 years older than him). I also had 2 older BMW's and a 67' 912 but got out of the expensive toy game. You may want to consider a different Wiki handle because everything is out there but you must know that and do not care but I thought it prudent to let you know. Well nice meeting you (sounds better than investigated). 208.54.35.173 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hey 208, if you don't mind me being so informal... :) Thank you for the notice. I haven't really looked into LB beyond the articles that she and I interact on to appreciate the full extent (intentional or otherwise) of her actions. She's made statements that suggest to me that she has purpose in her editing, but I'd be hard pressed to say that it has any nefarious intent. The worst accusation I can make at this point is that LB (and others) are victims of media hype rather than digging sufficiently to get to the heart of the matter. The discussions of "gun control" versus "arms control" not just as terminology, but in practical application are an example of this. They might be called different things in various parts of the world and by different politicians, agencies, and organizations, but it often deals with the identical firearm whose only distinction is geographically where its located at any given point in time.
- Yes, I'm a vintage truck guy... :) I have a '57 Metro van now and it will be first up to be turned into a driver and usable vehicle for my business. Sounds like you've owned some fun stuff too. As for the handle, like you say, it's all out there. Changing it might be perceived as an attempt to hide and I'm not exactly the shy type. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Heads up
I got tired of false accusations and bullying of editors by Lightbreather so after attacking me I opened an Arbcom which was related to the accusations Lightbreather made against you. I do understand if you want to lay low as she stated you have made up to which I responded was switching tactics when her attempt to silence you failed. I am posting so you are aware of the situation at Arbcom. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to answer questions assuming that this is not some sort of "witch hunt". Otherwise, I'm not sure how to respond to this. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Scal, I see you fixed 208's spelling.[9] Watch out! He warned me about "editing" his comment[10] because I added a subsection header[11] to another discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- His correction was constructive and yours was not. As far as watching out remind why you took Scalhotrod to Arbcom? You also appear to be canvasing a big no no. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, blame the auto-correct extension in my browser for that. In certain windows it just does its own thing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Notice
I have asked to have your move/rename of "Assault weapons ban" to "Assault weapons legislation" reconsidered at ARE [12] Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Jenna Haze/Allie Haze
Hey, Scalhotrod. I removed the WP:Hatnotes you added to the articles on Jenna Haze and Allie Haze, linking them to each other. Hatnotes are used to link articles to one another when they have either the same name, like Michael Jackson's article for example, which has a hatnote linking it to the Michael Jackson (disambiguation) page, which is a list of other people with the same name, or to link a person's article to one with a similar name, such as:
- Missy Stone and Misty Stone
- Sunny Lane and Sunny Leone
- Jasmin St. Claire and Jasmine Sinclair
- Kendall Karson and Kendel Carson
- Stoya and Stoja
The first names Jenna and Allie aren't similar, so there is no reason to link them to one another just because they have the same last name. That would be like adding a hatnote to Kim Kardashian's article stating: "This article is about Kim Kardashian. For the other Kardashians, see Kourtney Kardashian, Khloé Kardashian, Rob Kardashian, and Robert Kardashian. These are obviously good faith edits, but keep all this in mind next time. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Semiautomatic and FAL
- Assault weapons legislation in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Cleveland Elementary School shooting
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 15:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Woohoo! Very cool, trying it out now...! :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for trying on the Second Amendment
A year ago, after more than six months of trying to get an accurate portrayal on wikipedia of the history of the Second Amendment, I gave up.
Those who support the ignoring of the prefatory words of the Second Amendment are dead set against the public knowing that prior to the Heller decision in 2008, the Supreme Court and lower courts interpreted the Second Amendment solely as a collective right.
That undeniable fact can never be presented because the "keepers" of the Second Amendment article are desperately trying to rewrite history.
And you can't fight them, because they'll outlast you.
George Orwell was right: War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength
as long as a few editors of wikipedia have all the time in the world to say so...
But I do appreciate your sincere and dedicated effort to allow truth in Wikipedia. Even though it was always destined to failure. Because there is no way, under any policy, to actually put up objective truth in Wikipedia When a determined group of opinionated editors are determined to rewrite it.
(They even refused to allow me to cite Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment that they didn't agree with!) And that's when I gave up.
Still, I appreciate your integrity in attempting to revive my doomed attempt to put objectivity there.GreekParadise (talk)
- Hey Greek, I appreciate the thanks. I must be doing something right, because I seem to be upsetting everyone. The true gun nuts are ticked at me and call me (the guy with a section about Cowboy action shooting on his User page) anti gun, and, the gun controllers are mad because I change their edits. Most of the time its just to correct their grammar and vocabulary because its so atrocious versus the actual content. I do admit that they are good at finding sources, they are just really bad at paraphrasing them and using the information in the correct context.
- We did seem to come out alright on 2A. That article seems pretty stable and is mucked up less these days. I wish I could say the same for Gun Control and the like. But from what I understand, the U.S. politics articles are an even bigger mess. I just stick to 1st and 2nd Amendment issues, that's about all the "controversy" I can handle and still have WP be fun for me.
- Again, thank you my friend. Good to see that you're still around. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
User Box Sex ED in Pubic Schools
Hi, Guten tag, Hallo, etc.
Scal just noticed your user box about sex in public schools. Do you support forcing private schools to endorse this idea? Do you expect religious schools to teach things against their fundamental beliefs? Do you realize that children have been exposed to pornography as early as 3rd grade in the government school sex ed programs? Do you realize it is often a canard to promote a liberal agenda concerning lifestyle choices? Do believe public/government schools should teach the repercussions about non traditional lifestyle choices to include unwed pregancies, a rising Aids rate among homosexual men and also heterosexual women who have sex with bisexual men which are all of course well documented by the Centers for Disease Control studies. A google of Aids and CDC will show I am not blowing you smoke. Of course the questions are meant for things to consider and I certainly do not expect or desire you to explain all your positions. Just wanted you to look deeper into the matters around these "new" ideas. Thanks for your consideration of some of the points. 172.56.10.214 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Um, you meant "Public Schools", right? Otherwise your rant is hilarious and I appreciate the chuckle. And thank you for taking an interest in my User page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Edmond post office shooting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Edmond
- Julia Ann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to AVN
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)