Thanks for creating Robert J. Cottrol, Lightbreather!
Wikipedia editor Versace1608 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
If you could add one or more reliable third party references to this article, that would be great.
To reply, leave a comment on Versace1608's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
- You're welcome. Are you a person? (Maybe a bot? I'm not familiar with many of those.) I do plan to add more material this week. Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm reading over the last series of edits and other editors responses and will get back to you today. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you so much. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas/holiday. Let me know if there is any work I can do to help you to assess the situation. Diffs, history, anything... Lightbreather (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Still reading. I don't have any words of wisdom. I am pleased to see you are remaining calm over this. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I looked over Robert Spitzer's page and made a comment on the talk page. Sue isn't hounding you in the Wikipedia sense, but I am concerned. I'm not available in the daytime these days. I'll get back to you later. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I know you're not available during the day now, so no rush, but when you do get a chance, I would like your advice on how to have Sue's rollback rights taken away. I believe she has them and I believe she is abusing them. Most recent evidence is discussed at Spitzer's talk page under "How to make this stop?" In her last bulk revert (rollback?) with the edit summary "added banner," she not only added a banner to Spitzer's article, she rolled back good-faith edits by me and by Prof. Spitzer. That man has been much more patient with this ordeal than we have any right to expect. Of course, I don't like being treated like this, but I just cannot keep quiet and watch her treat the prof. that way. Lightbreather (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It was a pleasure. :-)
Kind regards. Angelus(talk) 15:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
on Gun politics in the United States Sue is not edit warring. She is not hounding you. Don't make administrative complaints about this kind of difference of opinion. Instead ask for an explanation. You made a change. Sue changed it back. Now start a discussion.
For example, in this edit Sue just changed section headings back. Ask her to explain why this:
- 5 Political arguments
- 5.1 Rights-based arguments
- 5.1.1 Fundamental right
- 5.1.2 Second Amendment rights
- 5.1.3 Security against tyranny and invasion
- 5.1.4 Self-defense
- 5.1.5 State constitutions
- 5.2 Public policy arguments
- 5.2.1 Gun violence
- 5.2.1.1 Firearm deaths
- 5.2.1.2 Logical pitfalls in the gun-violence debate
- 5.2.1.3 Relationship between criminal violence and gun ownership
- 5.2.1.4 Counterarguments to the effectiveness of gun laws on gun violence
Is better than this:
- 5 Political arguments
- 5.1 Fundamental right argument
- 5.2 Second Amendment arguments
- 5.3 Security against tyranny and invasion arguments
- 5.4 Self-defense arguments
- 5.5 State constitutions arguments
- 5.6 Gun violence arguments
- 5.6.1 Firearm deaths
- 5.6.2 Logical pitfalls in the gun-violence debate
- 5.6.3 Relationship between criminal violence and gun ownership
- 5.6.4 Counterarguments to the effectiveness of gun laws on gun violence
Ask very specific questions about the edits. If you have agreement on the talk page to back up edits, cite it. I agree with Sue by the way that you don't need to use "arguments" in all those subheadings. It's implied that they are arguments.
Articles like Gun politics in the United States and Gun control don't have clearly defined boundaries and are controversial. While working on them just add content. Just report the arguments pro and con. Don't reargue the questions. Readers can go to the references if they want to see that. Ideally a reader should not be able to tell if a section was written by someone who was for gun control or against it. Make sure that you can summarize ideas that you disagree with as clearly as those you agree with. Don't try to organize such articles. That steps on too many toes.
Don't remove material without a reference just because the citation needed template has been around for a while and you don't agree with the material. First find out if a reference exists. You removed:
- Frequent talk show guest, Examiner.com Gun Rights columnist and author John Longenecker argues that the nation's founders' Original Intent continues to align with the interests of the nation across all time. Longenecker sees the Founding Fathers' defeat of the abuse of due process in their overthrowing of British rule as a crucial aspect of lasting personal independence, without which the nation will perish for unwelcome dependency on government. Longenecker adds that the Founders did not write the Constitution for citizens, but entirely for officials in expressing limits on government at all levels. Regarding the Second Amendment, the Founders did not fear nor imagine weapons of the future, but saw more clearly abuses of due process in all eras of the future. They wrote that the citizen is the supreme authority to protect the new nation against such abuses in every generation. The Second Amendment embodies this by backing that ultimate citizen authority with lethal force, in fact citizen supervision and control of all force in America. Longenecker emphasizes that crime is often used as an excuse to disarm that ultimate authority - the people - for the unhampered growth of cottage industries, cronyism, boondoggles, crises, and bureaucracies based on anti-crime policy. Finally, Longenecker shows how claims of no improvements in right-to-carry states crime stats are untrue, and shows how, rather, that no state has been made to regret its support of the armed citizen.[citation needed]
From the content it is obvious that he has either written this or spoken about this somewhere. It turned out to be very easy to find his book and even the pages that some of this material comes from: Longenecker, John, Jr. (2005). Transfer of Wealth: The Case for Nationwide Concealed Carry of Handguns. AuthorHouse. pp. 8–9. ISBN 978-1-4634-5421-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). So please put the material back, with the reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Starry. I have been sick this past week, and I'm going to bed soon, but I will read and re-read what you've written here tomorrow.
- In the meantime, can you tell me what it IS that Sue is doing? Please, please go and look at what she just did on the Gun politics in the United States page. I am sick to my stomach just pondering how to make any progress on having good, NPOV, gun-control related pages on Wikipedia when editors on these pages behave the way most of the ones I've encountered behave. Lightbreather (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- BTW: I "restored" what you re-wrote and re-sourced. Thanks. I'm not suggesting we move it, but what section or under what "argument" do you think that paragraph belongs? (I think "argument" came about as a compromise with one of the other editors. After Sue reverted it, I changed it to "debate," but I think that got changed, too. Honestly... I don't know what's going on over there right now.) Lightbreather (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove the SPA tag again. You edit one subject exclusively. If you don't like the tag, feel free to report the problem to ANI, or better yet, edit something unconnected to Gun Control. be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You have tagged me as an SPA here. Above, you say of me, "You edit one subject exclusively." Here are some articles I have contributed to in addition to gun and gun-control related articles:
Please re-read the admin TParis's comments about calling people an SPA in this ANI discussion. That notice nearly boomeranged on you, but you can thank my my mentor, StarryGrandma, for that not happening. I am telling you now to stop labeling me an SPA.
TParis wrote: "Calling someone a WP:SPA is a personal attack when the title is used as a pejorative. Calling me a 'guy' could be a personal attack in the right context. ie. If I were editing an article on feminist issues and someone say "Well, of course he'd say that, he's a guy". That'd be a personal attack. It matters on the intentions on the person using it and not on the specific definition itself. Is it a fact that he's a SPA, it could be. Does that mean consistently pointing it out is acceptable? No. Especially if it's used as an ad hominem (argument about a person's traits, instead of their central point)." Lightbreather (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not the first to point out your exclusive editing habits and I doubt that I will be the last. There is no point in discussing this with you. Anyone who takes even the most cursory look at your edit history can see what is up. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of your opinion of me. All I'm asking is for you not to broadcast it. Let others speak for themselves. Also, please remember the warning TParis gave you on 27 JAN 2014 on the Article for deletion/Global gun cultures talk page: "Quit it, Sue, I will block you if you continue." Lightbreather (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lightbreaker,
I would like to ask you for some copy-editing help. I saw that you added your name to Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and have professional experience with copy-editing. My draft, User:Ɱ/sandbox7, is a thorough history and background on my hometown of Briarcliff Manor, New York, but the writing admittedly could use much improvement in wording and fluidity. I hope you'd be willing to help, and would really appreciate if you could take some time for glance at it.
Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to help. At first glance, it LOOKS lovely. I will start at the top and give feedback as I go. WHERE would you like me to post that (feedback)? Lightbreather (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Either here or a section of my talk page would be fine, I'd be equally responsive to either. Thanks for agreeing to help.--ɱ (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You recently mentioned my name to ArbCom, but I'm not sure I understand whether you're objecting to my behavior or not. Perhaps you could clarify? For the record, I have not received any message or other communication offline from any editor involved in the gun control cases, or from anyone who knows them, nor any offline communication about the cases or about those articles whatsoever. I am not currently connected with any gun rights or gun control organization, and have never been a member of the NRA. My only intent has been to edit the article you mention in a neutral manner to provide readers with relevant information.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I wrote: "I did do an 'email this user' twice but got no answer, and my message basically said 'hello'." The words "email this user" are over on the left-hand-side of your screen under "Tools". I did not use this tool to contact you, but rather used it to contact two other editors. They did not respond. What I'm trying to say is that I haven't been coordinating with any other editors about any Wikipedia-wide pro-gun push offline (or online for that matter).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for tracing the archive at Talk:Gun control, but please see this edit on how to change the external Wikilink to an internal Wikilink. Consider, also, using the {{diff}}, {{diff2}}, and {{Oldid}} templates when appropriate; even though I rarely do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will check 'em out. (I think I made that edit from my phone, which is less flexible for cutting and pasting. That MIGHT be why I did it that way. Or just because I'm still kinda green, as WP editors go.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
