User talk:Felsic2

Since we seem to actually be calming down a little here, do you believe the enforcement is actually necessary? With the number of people recusing themselves it seems like this will work out as a mess, and if you're willing to meet me halfway re: considering what I'm saying based on policy and stop accusing people of bias and censorship, I think we could actually get something done on these pages. As I said, I do think a politics section on AR15 is justified. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. Do you mean that the problem is with me accusing you of bias? Didn't you write these comments?

• clear POV pushing.
• "Teach the controversy" is not how the NPOV rules work.
• a disruptive editor whose edits consist entirely of uninformed gun control POV-pushing in articles where it has no place;
• your endless POV-pushing.
• It is entirely your POV
• Your constant POV-pushing
• trying to force your POV through
• blatantly pushing an anti-AR15 POV, pretending you're striving for balance isn't going to fool anyone.

I'd like for the "endless" accusations to stop. I don't see you saying that you can edit civilly. I asked you before several times. It'd be a welcome change. Felsic2 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: that isn't civil either. You're using nicer language, sure, but your tone is combative and accusatory, and you're still claiming I'm biased rather than just an asshole (guilty) even though I've actually agreed with you on a number of occasions over the last couple of days. Surely if I was biased against you I wouldn't have pointed out to ThomasW that you didn't start that AFD, voted to keep it, dug up your source for you, fix the convert operators with just a minor expression of puzzlement (I was wondering why you were saying it weighed 123 kilograms before realising that's the default) and moved the section on Sandy Hook over to the article because it legitimately belongs there?

Let's stop playing around; you can't possibly be unaware you have a strongly-held political position here and your edits and the sources you bring up reflect that position. You also can't possibly be unaware that I know more about the technical aspects of this subject than you do. That's fine, everyone has positions and nobody knows everything.

Sit down, and let me explain these ideas to you and why we have them. Hitting each other over the head with the rulebook isn't getting us anywhere. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor is biased. Let's talk about content, not each other. Felsic2 (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I appreciate the conciliatory spirit, and hope we can build on it. It sure wasn't my aim to imply that you or anyone is an asshole. People editing in good faith can have contradictory views. Let's be friendly. Felsic2 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While in politics being "biased" is held to be the worst thing in the universe, in reality it's only a problem if it's an irrational bias. You have many rational briefs that could be called biases; for example, you have never consumed a pound of hydrogen cyanide, jumped into the crater of an active volcano or tried to eat live wasps, but I doubt anyone would argue you have leapt to an irrational conclusion that doing those things is bad because you trust a certain set of facts and people on what would happen if you did.

The reason I bought up the phrase "teach the controversy" (which you mentioned in the arbcom) is because a couple of your arguments are mechanically similar. The way that argument works in fields like evolution and anthrocentric climate change is to try to make being an expert a political position: it's then said that since all the experts occupy one extreme, it's ok to introduce people who aren't regarded as experts to represent the opposing position. The problem with this is that it requires a massive conspiracy among experts to hold a certain political position, even though there is no reason for a multinational group with differing views and politics to do this. For example, world.guns.ru is run by a Russian citizen who has no real interest in whether or not Americans can own semi-automatic centrefire rifles, while one source I quoted on the definition of "assault rifle," The Book of Guns & Gunsmiths, was written by two British citizens in 1977 when it was still legal for Americans to purchase brand-new transferable fully automatic weapons if they filled out Title II paperwork.

I'd also point out it's not true that gun publications avoid criticism: for example, in November 1967, Guns & Ammo ran an article called "The M-16 Controversy! Are Our Soldiers Fighting With Defective Weapons?" As noted, it's just largely controversy that relates directly to what the firearm is rather than what it can be used for. There's also an internal spectrum of political beliefs among even pro-gun groups; for example, you go from publications that approve of background checks and even capacity bans to survivalist publications that would argue for the legality of civilians owning nuclear weapons, and there's some criticism that the old hands of the NRA don't care enough about modern ARs because those darn kids with their tacticool guns should get off their lawn :)

As examples: TheTruthAboutGuns says an NRA video "stinks of fascism", "NRA Lobbyist on the Wrong Side of a Gun Issue. Again.", Ammoland prints a letter criticising NRA support of secret gun bans and no-gun zones, "Stupid NRA Responds to Stupid Donald Trump’s Really Stupid Tweet", chief NRA lobbyist Chris W. Cox calls Trump's idea of armed-while-drunk citizens stopping the Orlando massacre a fantasy that "defies common sense", Guns.com criticises LaPierre’s "demonization" of video games and movies, TheTruthAboutGuns describes this strategy as "lunacy", posters on ITS Tactical forums universally agree these claims are stupid, PistolForum.com isn't exactly happy about it either, etc. It's not some monolithic entity where everyone agrees to a party line.Herr Gruber (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1967?! Well, I guess that proves that some gun magazines run critical articles at least once in their existence. Felsic2 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my close of this AE request you're involved in. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WP:RSN discusses if sources are reliable or not, they don't approve edits. Your edit is NOT suported by the source. See Talk:SIG MCX. Thomas.W ^talk 19:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been off wikipedia for a bit because I haven't been feeling well, I'll take a look at it later. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apology required. Everyone contributes to Wikipedia on their own schedule. Get well soon. Felsic2 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I hope you realise that edits like this one are under Gun Control discretionary sanctions (of which you have been notified) since it deals with gun control issues and the National Rifle Association (the discretionary sanctions cover all edits relating to "governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues" on all pages on Wikipedia). Thomas.W ^talk 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with that edit? Felsic2 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there are problems or not with edits always depends on which side you look at them from, my post was mainly intended to make you realise that discretionary sanctions apply not only to articles about gun control issues, but to all edits about the "forbidden" subjects (see above) regardless of where on Wikipedia the edits are made. Thomas.W ^talk 19:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never any doubt in my mind. That's one reason I alerted you to them as well. Let's both try to follow best editing practices, regardless of the topic. Felsic2 (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't made any edits, anywhere, that fall under gun control discretionary sanctions, the closest I've gotten to it is one mention in one article of the restrictions (paying a $200 stamp tax to BATFE and clearing a background check) the National Firearms Act puts on ownership of firearms with barrels shorter than 16". And I don't intend to get any closer to it since I live in Europe (and intend to stay here) and thus have no horse in that race. Thomas.W ^talk 19:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should go talk to Drmies, an admin who apparently believes that the "broad" scope of that sanction covers more. An editor was topic banned by Drmies under the DS for these edits: [1], none of which seem to be directly about the "governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues".

I still don't see a source connecting the stamp tax to the MCX. It looks as if you're insisting on including unsourced information while forbidding the inclusion of sourced material. That seems upside down to me. Felsic2 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That topic ban was a one-off: very limited in both time and scope and intended mainly/solely to stop ongoing disruption on one specific article (instead of blocking the editor for disruption/IDHT). And the connection to the MCX is obvious: the NFA requires a $200 stamp tax on all firearms with a barrel shorter than 16", and the mention of it was added to a paragraph about a 9"-barreled version of the MCX. Thomas.W ^talk 20:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judge the enforcement action as you wish.

The connection of the Orlando shooting to the MCX is obvious as well. In case it wasn't obvious, over a dozen sources point it out. How many sources connect the stamp tax law with the MCX? So far, zero. And yet, which one is on the article? Felsic2 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one that belongs in the article, per rules that have been pointed out to you many times. I know you feel strongly about the things you're editing about, but feeling too strongly about the subject area one is editing doesn't work on a collaborative effort like Wikipedia, with a rule that says that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view. There are subject areas that I feel strongly about too, fields that I worked in for many years, but I never edit articles in those areas, never have and never will (with the exception of a few reverts of blatant puerile vandalism), in order not to put any form of bias into the articles. Thomas.W ^talk 21:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "rules" I guess you mean the advice page at WP:GUN. You wrote this about the difference between essays and policy: [2] I continue to be surprised that you are unwilling to engage in any dispute resolution or mediation, even though you don't seem to mind discussing this issue at length.

I, too, believe that all articles should be written from the NPOV. It says:

• Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

That's what I'm asking for - to explain all sides without editorial bias. And:

• Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

That's how we determine the weight to give each issue within a topic. There are numerous published, reliable sources covering the use of the SIG MCX in the Orlando shooting. While some people may regard it as rude to say so, the categorical exclusion of otherwise relevant material appears to me to be a straightforward form of censorship. See WP:CENSOR. Felsic2 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean the project page, I mean WP:UNDUE/WP:BALASPS and not getting carried away just because something has been in the news. Which I pointed out to you very early in these discussions, and others have mentioned too, I've also told you that you can't count the number of sources and say that Orlando must be mentioned since there are X number of sources mentioning the MCX being used there but only Y number of sources saying something else, because of course there are more sources mentioning Orlando than mentioning anything else about the MCX since the events in Orlando made headline news not only in the US but everywhere. But you obviously don't want to listen. Thomas.W ^talk 21:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening and I did hear that. (For the future, it'd be helpful if you specify which rules you're referring to.)

But what I said to you in response, (see Talk:SIG MCX#break), and which you never replied to, despite a couple of pings, is that WP:BALASPS calls for "balance", not the total exclusion of newsworthy events. I don't see what text you're reading in that policy which says to delete all mention of something just because it's reported in newspapers. What I do see is an acknowledgement that there may be a flurry of sources and that proper balance may discount that quantity somewhat. So the appropriate weight for X number of news sources is something like 1/2 X, or even 1/10 X, but not 0/14 X. What I've proposed is a single sentence. That isn't out of balance and it isn't undue weight. It's a very short mention of something that's far more notable than some dry specifications. Felsic2 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you seriously want truthful technical answers, I will help. That is all I ever tried to do on here was help people learn.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at AR-15 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. Thomas.W ^talk 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems more like an attack then an effort at dispute resolution. Please describe this so-called "edit war". I don't see it. With whom am I "warring"? Felsic2 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link marked "edit war" in the warning above and you'll find answers to your questions. And no, it's not an attack, it's a formal warning that you're one step away from getting blocked. Thomas.W ^talk 20:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know what edit wars are, generically. I'm asking you what edit war exists on AR-15. I don't see any.

Also, please don't threaten me with blocking. I have not done anything that's blockable. You have made reverts too, so please don't continue with a patronizing approach. Felsic2 (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have made one, two, three reverts (per the definition linked to above) within 24 hours on AR-15, and that's why you were warned. As would any other editor be if they did the same. Thomas.W ^talk 20:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly "edit warring". But knock yourself out. Felsic2 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the definition used here it definitely is edit-warring... Thomas.W ^talk 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of reverts and edit warring, please use the article talk page, in the discussion already started here: Talk:AR-15#Cartridge_Section, to explain your revert of the deletion of unsourced information. Or if you can't find a good policy to justfy it, then simply restore the edit. Felsic2 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What other user accounts have you had before this one? Because you're definitely not a new user, new users don't know their way around from day one, new users don't make edits like these: [3], [4], [5], from the very start, and new user's don't know what topic bans users they haven't previously interacted with have. And to that we can add that the very first article you edited, right after you created this account, is a very obscure and little known article created by Lightbreather, a user who has been site-banned by Arbcom, and who you also mentioned on your talk page within 30 minutes of creating your account, and paid homage to on their talk page not long after... Thomas.W ^talk 22:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're really coming after me, eh? See user:Felsic2, Sherlock. Felsic2 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather/Archive#05_May_2015, in case your sleuthing needs help. Your efforts are beginning to feel like harassment. Felsic2 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that connects the two accounts (Felsic and Felsic2) other than the name and what you claim on your user page. There's a one year gap between Felsic stopped editing and this account was created, and the editing style is different... Thomas.W ^talk 22:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Felsic2 (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to content: Please use the article talk page, in the discussion already started here: Talk:AR-15#Cartridge_Section, to explain your revert of the deletion of unsourced information. Felsic2 (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Felsic(2) and I have had our disagreements, I don't believe them to be a Lightbreather sock. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

u mad bruhhhhhhhhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting and Possible Research shows that Felsic admits to once using a proxy that Lightbreather put up a wall of text defended with a tirade of endless jibber jabber here: [6] Light breather was also found to be using socks. It is therefore likely LB is still editing Gun Control articles in their typical vehement anti-gun manner that got them booted but as sock. There are similarities but only a check user would be able to geo-locate to LB known IP's and area. She claimed she was outed but I have no time to travel down that rabbit trail she created. Could this be LB alternative account in case I do get permanently forbidden from editing account? There are signs pointing in that direction but we need more evidence like a check user to go down that road of confirmation. Someone should start a sock puppet investigation if they feel that strongly about it. 205.185.157.11 (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Possibility It is possible that Felsic and User:Darknipples (very offensive and inappropriate name) are Socks as they both showed up around same time and edit the same gun articles with the same anti-gun tirades of editing styles. In fact they could both be socks of Lightbreather but that matters not if a check user shows them to be socks of one another they both get banned. And then reinvent themselves as an account like the new User talk:Breathe of Light. I am not saying they [7] are a sock or imposter like Felsic did on their talk page [8]. Just pointing out they may already have extra accounts waiting. 205.185.157.11 (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The refs were placed out of order, check it now. i included the quote on the last in case your version of Google Books does not support it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Springee - I didn't want to clutter up the thread too much, but I didn't understand your point about the initial media reports that the gun used was an AR-15 rather than a SIG MCX. My general view is that all journalists make mistakes, however those who correct their mistakes are better than those who don't. Were you suggesting that the Washington Post and other sources that reported the police chief's incorrect identification of the weapon are therefore unreliable?

Regarding the firearm project's advice page, it's interesting advice but it was agreed upon by a group of about seven editors several years ago. I don't think it should bind our editing decisions today. If the principle is sound then we don't need to refer to that advice page - we can just refer to the basic Wikipedia policies to reach the right conclusion. That's my view, at least. Felsic2 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC) (Felsic2's message was copied from User talk:Springee by Springee)[reply]

Felsic2, I'm really not that interested in getting into this discussion. There was a comment in the discussion that it was the police, not the media who got it wrong when the gun was reported as an AR-15 vs a MCX. My point is it doesn't mater if it was the police or the media who made the mistake. Originally people said the gun was an AR-15. Note that civilian access to AR-15's and the like has been a hot topic, especially after Sandy Hook. The articles that you have that talk about the MCX are really just providing the backdrop for making a case against or describing the issues associated with civilian ownership of "assault weapons"/"moderns sporting rifles"/what ever we want to call these things. I think the point of at least one article was it doesn't mater than the gun turned out to be a Sig vs a typical AR rifle, the issue/lethality/etc were all the same. Hence why I see that as an article about the political topic, not so much the gun.

The age of the project page sections doesn't mater. If nothing else that strengthens the suggestions as they have stood the test of time. In this case it really seems like you are dismissing their views because they conflict with your views on the subject.

I noticed that you notified a number of project pages regarding your RFC. Please review [[9]]. I suspect a case can be made that you violated both spamming and votestacking. Failing to notify the firearms project page would be a big red flag in this case. Why would you post to the LBGT and even the US history page but you didn't post at any firearms related project pages? I would STRONGLY suggest you notify the relevant firearms project pages to avoid even the appearance of intentional vote stacking. Springee (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Since it's not a topic you're interested in I won't extend the conversation. FYI, I notified the firearms wikiproject at the same time I notified the others.[10] I notified all the projects listed at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Felsic2 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SIG MCX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M16. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same paragraph and the preface one page up. Personally, I think it is more like the Trooper as the DBs never really did it for me like the Python did. Do you agree? What's your feelings on the Diamondback? Can you believe the prices they get these days?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Do you seriously not know who George Kellgren is?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this at Talk:Kel-Tec P-32# New sources. That's what talk pages are for. Felsic2 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been comfortable with that particular source. I realize it's out there and try to replace it with something better when I can. There are plenty of reliable sources that state what you want, including Newsweek and Bloomberg News. Use something better. Think if you want to just stack sources in a sub par article or if you want to put something out there that is worth reading.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're ok with self-published sources when it suits you? OK I get it, yeah, not much info out there on SAFIR. Nice job on the article, btw--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a bot. I personally try to welcome everyone! I look forward to your positive contributions and maybe you can help with keeping things a bit more balanced. I am willing to put the past behind us if you are.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - please see talk page for article. Thank you. me again...see talk page (again). 66.103.35.72 (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7th September...ayup, you got reverted. See talk page for article for my comment. We will get nowhere discussing 80 percent receivers in that article.

There is a saying. The first time is a fluke. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. Discussion of 80 percent receivers has been deleted three times. I leave it as an exercise to the student to draw the proper conclusion.

Been good working with you. See you on the bitstream. Cheers, 66.103.35.72 (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently added a number of notifications related to this RfC [[11]]. Please note the notified pages at the bottom of the RfC. Also, please notify the Ford, Chevrolet, and GM talk pages. When it appears an RfC is not going your way it starts to look like campaigning/selective notification when you notify a number of talk pages yet avoid other obvious talk pages such as the manufacture's pages. Springee (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best not to try to attribute motivations to the editor who started the RFC and neglected to notify relevant pages and projects. I'll try to find the template you're talking about. I'm guessing you could have done it yourself as easily as asking me to do it. Felsic2 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any template. I'll just write a note. Felsic2 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You inquired about my sources for the Chevrolet Caprice page. The majority is from the Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999, original Chevrolet Caprice brochures, and the MVMA specifications documents that GM originally published for each model year. Police car data is from Edwin Sanow's book on Chevrolet Police Cars and his book on the Encyclopedia of Police Cars, and Michigan State Police police car test results. Caprice 96 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the references as time allows. I can assure you that everything I put on Wiki can be sourced. Unfortunately in my earlier years of editing I didn't add them in at the time and it is very tedious to go back and cite specific sources. I don't know what the rules are, but can I not list off all my sources like a bibliography or do I have to go through and actually add footnotes? I did add the citation for the police care (9C1 section). Which parts are controversial? I will cite those sections first. Caprice 96 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--RAF910 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone else took care of it ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice intro on the SIG article. Thank you!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's mostly copied from the archives, with some additions. It was strange not to have any intro. However, I can't claim to understand the complicated corporate structure and history. Felsic2 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--RAF910 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Felsic2. 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]

‎Nikoroman (talk · contribs), now marked as a sock of PhoenixS15, has been a prolific editor and creator of articles on firearms. As such, I've noticed his edits and all that I've looked at casually have appeared correct. Since the master account is known for vandalism, should I check those edits more carefully for obscure vandalism, hoaxes, or other non-obvious problems? I don't want to spend the time unnecessarily, but if it's a concern it might be easier to do while the contributions are fresh.Felsic2 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes please. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From [12]

Are we recruiting editors to join the discussion?[13] Felsic2 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

− No, it's not a violation of CANVASS. A neutrally worded message was left to an editor who was previously involved. If you think it's a canvass issue, feel free to take it to ANI. I'm not worried in the least. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:APPNOTE. "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" My neutrally worded reminder to an editor previously involved in the discussion is completely appropriate. If you feel otherwise, feel free to take it to ANI. I have no worry about how that will turn out. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So you can stop implying that I've done something contrary to the guideline. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question. The implicit answer seems to be "yes". Felsic2 (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry that you struggle with the concept here. I didn't recruit Thomas. He was already involved. So the correct answer is NO. Nice try though. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the M16 rifle page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felsic2, you have made several accusations of hounding against myself and other editors. It's time to drop it. The edits you made to Smith & Wesson M&P15 followed the same pattern we disagreed about on previous gun articles. You have edited how many articles in the last month or two? I would also suggest you read what Hounding is. It isn't hounding when other editors object to your controversial edits to multiple articles. As a side comment, please do not restore material to my talk page after I have removed it. You are welcome to post new comments but if I've removed a comment please don't restore it. Springee (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to this talk page) Springee, you seem to have a habit of fixating on individual editors and opposing them. You followed me to the Eddie Eagle article, which I eventually left because you seemed to be more concerned with fighting an IP editor than improving the article, and I didn't want to get caught up in that conflict. But even though I withdrew from that you nonetheless followed me to a fresh article, which you've never edited before, for the sole purpose of disagreeing with me. You're not making the point generally, you're not opposing other people who make similar edits, you're only following me. That's why I call it "hounding". Again, I ask you to stop following me around. Felsic2 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I have instead noticed a series of questionable edits you have made. Others have also noticed the same edits. Please don't accuse me of trying to carry on with conflicts when it appears that was exactly what you did here [14]. I would oppose anyone who makes "similar edits" but because I've seen you make such edits I notice when you make them. If you want to cite examples of others making similar edits please do. Contrary to what you think I'm not going around opposing your edits in general, only specific cases where you seem to want to load up firearms related articles with questionable content. Perhaps the better way to solve this is to move things to the talk page and respect local consensus. Springee (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment moved to this location) It's hard to have a discussion with you when you constantly delete my comments. I don't understand what this edit has to do with you.[16] Felsic2 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

We can have a comment here where a discussion was already started. To answer your question, I am allowed to see what articles you have edited. I didn't reverse your edit. I haven't stopped or blocked your editing in any way. I have expressed disagreement with the edit. Hounding doesn't say I can't look at what you are doing and comment if I have a reasonable disagreement. You have accused several editors who felt that you have made a series of questionable edits of hounding. The core problem is that you have made a series of questionable edits. Anyway, you have stated your view. I've stated mine. Springee (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a self declared [15] and [16] meatpuppet of a banned user you are topic banned from gun related articles. There is ample evidence that your work is a violation of her ban for pov grinding [17] also you attack the editors and pages as she directs from off site. Additionaly I draw attention to your previous warning Both Herr Gruber (talk · contribs) and Felsic2 (talk · contribs) are warned against further battleground and disruptive behavior in the gun control topic area. This will serve as your only warning. J8079s (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Followed a thread here from User talk:Lightbreather. @J8079s: Do not purport to issue topic bans. This entire message could be viewed as a personal attack, calling someone a meatpuppet and saying "self-declared" when the diffs you cite say nothing of the sort. "your work is a violation of her ban" is nonsensical. I have no idea what action of Felsic2 led to this message, but if you continue down this road it's not going to be him/her that winds up with a sanction (that's not a threat -- like you, I have no authority to issue blocks or bans -- it's just what tends to happen). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" "your work is a violation of her ban" is nonsensical." Actually, it's not nonsensical, per WP:PROXYING - if indeed that is what is taking place, which as best I can tell has not been established. Anastrophe (talk)

Expressing admiration for another editor's work, and expressing regret that they've been banned, is not the same thing as being a WP:Meatpuppet. Lightbreather did not recruit me to work here. Our interests are significantly different. Since I've had little contact with user: J8079s, I'm not sure why he's making this complaint. It appears he's building a case against anyone presumed to hold a certain view on gun control: User:J8079s/Sandbox. Felsic2 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although we are often at odds on gun control topics, I appreciate that you popped in on this :) ResultingConstant (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I can't find any times we've had significant disagreements. But glad to do what's right. Felsic2 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand verifiable sources, but part of the problem on this particular subject is the dearth of such. I know of two books, one by Massad Ayoob, and the other by Mitchell Ota. There might be as many as half a dozen magazine articles on the subjec,t in the last 30+ years. I can quote from the books if you wish, but I was there as much as either of those two gentlemen, and wrote from personal experience. what works? apologies if I'm clumsy at this, still figuring things out. Primogunwriter (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Niteshift36: Could you please specify how I have disrupted the encyclopedia? Felsic2 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your removal of properly placed tags (such as SPA tags) and refactoring of others comments on talk pages. Especially when they were restored by other editors. And no, I will not sit here and debate it. Heed the warning or don't. I just need to show you got it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor cannot simultaneously be an SPA and a sock of an editor who has edited many pages. So making both accusations at once is illogical. Further, an article talk page is the wrong place to make accusations of that type. No admin had endorsed the accusations. I reported the issue at ANI. In summary, I believe I acted appropriately in response to inappropriate actions by you and another editor. Felsic2 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly can be both. The current "account" (an IP) is only editing a single type article. Admins don't have to endorse it. Heed the warning or don't. I just need to show you got it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just edited Pump Action Shotguns. You changed a word, but you didn't correct the false assertion made in that section. I'm not trying to be impolite but I want to ask you if you have any knowledge of firearms?Digitallymade (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitallymade: If the assertion is false then we should delete it entirely. The intro of an article is the wrong place for an unreferenced debate over nomenclature. Do you know of a source that settles the issue one way or another? Felsic2 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked one up on the internet so that I can use it. I almost certainly have it in one of my books. However, again, I'm not trying to be unkind, but do you know anything about firearms and did you read the section you altered? Do you see the false statement? If I was describing the pump action I would compared it to a Trombone. I'm editing a section of Pressure of .223 Rem vs 5.56Nato right now for facebook so I'm a little bit busy and in a few minute I'm going to the range to so some shooting. One of my worst tendencies (Like Trump) is that I don't always realize what direct language sounds like to others. I'm not in the habit of being diplomatic and so I am often perceived as being impolitic. Sorry about that! Digitallymade (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want to change The 40mm M203 grenade launcher mounted under the barrel of M16 rifles and M4 carbines is sometimes described as "pump or slide-action." to The 40mm M203 grenade launcher mounted under the barrel of M16 rifles and M4 carbines is sometimes incorrectly described as "pump or slide-action." That's fine with me so long as there's a source. Felsic2 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the way to the last section, the detail I was hinting about was mentioned, so I was wrong. But it's still inaccurate in that depiction and in other details. Digitallymade (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted it outright. See the discussion on the talk page. Felsic2 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's a trigger mechanism related to the disconnector of a self loading firearm. Your change of the page is incorrect. Two types of automatic trigger mechanism:

• Fully Automatic
• Semi Automatic.

To say automatic is incorrect and sloppy.Digitallymade (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep discussions about article on the article talk pages. That way anyone else with input can participate as well. I'm short on time today, but I'll respond there ASAP. Felsic2 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you. Great work today. You should be proud. Don't sweat the pile-ons, or the reverts. We are all watching intently. Nice to see you remaining patient. It suits you. Darknipples (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your diligence in support of the neutrality of Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience in explaining the application of Wikipedia's neutrality pillar, and in particular our due weight policy, to our colleagues. Thank you for demonstrating the courage to pursue neutrality in areas of dispute where notice board filings are a technique for defending content favored over policy. Thank you for your work on the essay Gun use, which is an important contribution to the neutrality of the project and is well worthy of promotion to Wikipedia space. 35.161.172.255 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your essay, User:Felsic2/Gun use, was moved to Wikipedia:Gun use several times by a sock, and was finally deleted outright. It is currently under deltion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Wikipedia:Gun use. I didn't know if you were aware of the deletions, and thought you might like to have it back. If you do ask for it to be userfied again, you might want to have it move-protected too. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]