User talk:Faceless Enemy/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Faceless Enemy. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Faceless Enemy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 13:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Neall Ellis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neall Ellis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neall Ellis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ruger SR22

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ruger SR22 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.firearms-safety-course.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69:map-22-silvercore&catid=11:firearms-training-articles-&Itemid=76. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction (DS) alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

fyi

You are being accused of being a sock of North8000. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/North8000. EChastain (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MAIG logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MAIG logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL Conflating

Hi, FE. Please feel free to point out that "in your opinion" my citations or suggestions may not fall under the realm of GSL, and or, why. However, your comment that I was "conflating" can easily be interpreted as UNCIVIL. Could you please clarify what you meant by this? Darknipples (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly apologize; it was not meant to be uncivil. I'll explain further on the article talk page. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey there

I'd like to preface this by saying, I'm in no way trying to tell you how to edit. You are obviously experienced and probably already know most of what I'm about to say, but I feel it would be prudent of me to touch on some friendly methods, if I may, with regard to editing on GSL, in order to avoid (my) confusion and therefore remove the possibility of conflict and or misunderstandings. It's always a good idea to at least start a discussion on the TP before or immediately after removing someone else's material that they worked to search, create, and add then to the article. It's also always better to try and just add to the article instead of only removing material (which you usually do add to the article as well), unless it is unsupported by cites OR involves SYNTH in relation to the subject (such as in the case where you removed material about the V. Tech tragedy, and were absolutely correct in doing so). Second, as much as possible, try to avoid referencing or using cites that make no mention of the term GSL. By referring or using cites that literally have the term mentioned in the context you are trying to convey, it makes it much easier for me to be receptive to the changes you'd like to make. In fact, I can almost guarantee I will agree to changes that are presented in this manner. Hopefully I'm not just being redundant, but if I am, please don't take offense, it is only in an effort to improve civil discourse between us and the GSL article. Darknipples (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: First, I'm only about a month "older" than you, (not including when I used to edit before a multi-year hiatus). So we're learning together. Second, I prefer not to start a TP discussion if I feel the edit summary is sufficient to explain my reasoning. The TP on GSL is already cluttered enough. If something gets added back in, or taken back out a second time, then it's probably good to start a TP discussion, but I don't think they're necessary or useful for stuff that can be resolved with edit summaries. More time discussing editing means less time actually editing. As to the source issue, it's going to be tough to do that with the GSL article for two big reasons. 1) It's about the lack of a law, not about a law. So for sections that talk about an overview of current law it will inherently be difficult to find good sources that mention GSL. Likewise, there are plenty of excellent sources that will not mention it. We need to make sure that the source backs up the statement at hand, whether or not it mentions the GSL by name. If you're aware of any policy that requires the article title be mentioned in sources, please let me know. 2) One side of the debate says it's not a loophole at all, so they're going to avoid calling it that except to say that it doesn't exist. A quick search of ATF's website shows no results for the word "loophole" (though that may be more of a comment on their website's search function than anything else; Google finds 63 results). Point is, a lot of good, relevant sources will write about GSL or the issues surrounding it without mentioning it by name. As I see it, our job is to make sure the sources back up the statements at hand, whether or not they mention GSL by name. For an example of what I mean, see this section of the Grand Canyon article. Two of the sources in that section (#16 & #21) don't mention the Grand Canyon at all. They're still good sources though, because they back up the statement at hand. Anyway, thanks for the input and discussion. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

In the spirit of civil discourse - I think I owe you one - I know we may disagree on technicalities, but as humans, we all just want the same thing - beer Darknipples (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Beer gave us civilization! :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Please accept this with my apologies Darknipples (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Let's get back to editing. :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

GPTF

I have added my support. I feel I can be a valued part of this team. Darknipples (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for your opinion. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

I'm being sweet Darknipples (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Roses are red, brownies are brown. They're always delicious if you're feeling down. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

WTH and PS

WTH? First you thank me for this edit - [1] - then, 20 minutes later,[2] you delete it and the material it supported as a "poor source"? And deleted info sourced to the National Shooting Sports Foundation about the gun industry that gives the paragraph's opening sentences some context? Lightbreather (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I thanked you for fixing the page, but decided the source you fixed in was unreliable. To me, a "thank" doesn't always mean I agree with the edit - just that it was a helpful contribution. And I feel that putting the line about the NSSF in there in that way is undue; it may unintentionally mislead readers to believe that the gun industry provides more than half of the NRA's money. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: What is "PAK"? (All that stuff gives your talk-page an annoying you-gotta-be-an-insider-to-get-it kind of vibe.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember. 2010 was a while ago. Not sure how to archive things, and to date I haven't cared enough to learn. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think some of your fellow editors (myself included) would appreciate it. Here are instructions on how to archive: Cut and paste procedure. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Request

Re all the stuff you removed from the NRA article. First, Business Insider is NOT "clickbait."[3] But more importantly, we discussed all of this only recently.

Perhaps you have heard that I am out of my home state and that I broke my elbow yesterday to boot! Let's wait until I'm home (waiting for a doc's appt) before we resume this debate. I don't mind you adding due, balancing material - but please don't delete mine. I am pinging Felsic on this, too. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I replaced all of the clickbait links with actual sources pretty quickly, and I think the only statement I removed ("considerable amount") I would have removed either way for editorializing. We got to the same place without the bad source, so I don't see the value in leaving it in. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And ETA on your return? I'm about to propose something else that you probably will disagree with. I was actually going to post it yesterday, but held off because I saw what you said. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, Business Insider is NOT a "clickbait" source. (If you think it is, maybe try WP:RSN?) If you want to ADD a source or sources, fine, but don't delete others because you don't like what they say, which is:

The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

"The bulk of" and "much" mean "considerable" (or "significant"), which we discussed earlier this month.[4]

Also, your re edit summary, "Undid mass reversion"[5]: My edit was in response to your string of (mass) edits[6][7][8][9][10] moving and REMOVING material that I added three weeks ago.

If I were in my own office and had the use of both arms, I might have tried to figure out the appropriate edits you made among the others. If you want to add due, balancing info, fine, but - again - don't delete what I wrote because you don't agree it with or dislike the source.

I'm scheduled be home April 8. Probably with my arm still in a sling, but at least at my own computer. Lightbreather (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll hold off for a couple more days on the other thing them. And I re-sourced the statements in question with more reputable sources than the writer who brought us "39 Photos That Prove Birthday Boy Vladimir Putin Is The Most Badass Leader In The World". If you actually look at the edits they're mostly about re-sourcing things. I managed to track down the original source of the Sugarmann quote, and I also put in the VPC article, which I feel is a pretty important source for that section. Please take the time to read through the article as it stands now, rather than mass removing the sources and content I added. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I am home now, but I've had surgery on my elbow and will be in a cast/splint thingy for a few more days. Then, physical therapy. Lightbreather (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say again, to above, if you want to add sources and info, fine, but don't unilaterally remove what is already there and sourced. Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I added sources and information, and removed WP:UNDUE material. Again, you did a mass revert. Not sure whether you read it this time before reverting? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I don't think a mass revert is appropriate unless you truly believe everything I did in those edits was nonconstructive. If you want to re-add a specific source, or add material about the gun industry back in, go ahead and let's talk about those specific issues, but don't perform mass reverts on sourced content. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And calling my edits "mass" is hardly fair - I made 5 edits in 21 minutes. Earlier (March 10 between 22:17 & 22:97), you made 9 edits to the same page in 20 minutes, part of a string of 24 edits in a row over the course of about two hours. More recently, on April 8, you made 6 edits to Gun shows in the United States in the space of about 17 minutes. I'm sure I could find other examples if I went past the first page of your "contribs", but whatever. I understand how it happens - we see material that needs fixing or improving, do it, and then, after saving the page, we see something else that needs fixing...and 15 minutes later we've done another 8 edits. That's fine, but I don't mass revert your edits when I see something I disagree with. Please extend the same courtesy to me instead of assuming bad faith. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the NRA talk page, I felt it prudent to add that I've also had this issue with FE in the past, but later found those edits to be justified, and myself in the wrong. I'm not sure in this case, but I think all editors should consider taking things to the talk page before removing them, especially when they have been notified of said editors temporary absence. Darknipples (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Re your (Faceless Enemy) starting a WP:AN/3 about this dispute, in addition to four separate discussions on the content involved:

As you know, I have had a broken elbow since March 30, when I fell down while I was out of state helping a hospitalized friend. I have since returned home and I had surgery on my elbow on April 8. My arm is in a cast, I am in pain, and my waking and sleeping patterns have been disrupted - and my ability to type has been restricted to my non-dominant hand. After weighing my options, I have decided to respond at Talk:National Rifle Association#Edit warring to the various discussions you have started. I will reply no further to this discussion.

This problem goes back weeks, and I have made good-faith efforts to resolve it. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Česká Zbrojovka Uherský Brod (logo).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Česká Zbrojovka Uherský Brod (logo).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice, request

There is a discussion at WT:RSN at which your response is requested. Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Definitely agree that it should be clarified at the top one way or another. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Turtle dove

Hi Faceless: I see you've changed the European turtle dove article to say "Environmental groups say..." with "until we find a better source" about the hunting issue (at least, I'm assuming that's the bit you're challenging, rather than the dietary issue). What sort of source would you accept as being a "better" one? I'm happy to look for another if I know what would be more acceptable. Common sense would suggest that hunting in the spring (i.e. before the birds get a chance to breed) probably isn't the best idea, but hey, what do I know?! :) MeegsC (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@MeegsC: my problem with the source is that at the end it tells people to "Put pressure on countries which allow hunting: e.g. support the RSPB and BirdLife Malta in their campaign against spring hunting." The source is definitely biased. I read up on the issue a bit more, and it seems like the source also has a significant factual error, which leads me to seriously doubt its reliability on this topic. It says that "over 100,000 [turtle doves] are killed each autumn in Malta alone." However, according to this paper by the Maltese government, "during the period 1 September 2011 until 31 January 2012, a total of 4,302 Turtle Doves and 6,281 Quails were hunted." Also, it says that "during the 2012 Spring Hunting Season a total of 805 Turtle Doves and 151 Quails were shot". Even making the assumption that both numbers are underreported by 50% (which seems a bit far-fetched; the government describes the hunt occurring under "strictly supervised conditions"), that still gives us a total of only about 10,000 doves a year. This discussion really belongs on the article talk page under the "Hunting cite" section, not on my user page - do you mind if I move it there? Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Habushu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copperhead. 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) 09:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping...

...at the NRA Talk page. I responded and I'm sorry that I haven't been more active. LB's block was lifted and now there's a new fracas getting primed at ArbCom. Its tiring just observing it... I should probably devote some time to getting the template and framework setup for the GPTF, but even doing some of the innocuous stuff has me gun shy these days and the intention is to calm the Gun Politics drama... Ugh... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've unwatched LB's talk page for a while. It was making my head spin. Yeesh. The GPTF would really help to get more eyes on content disputes to build consensus one way or another, as well as to help us standardize language across articles. Maybe I'll work on that for a while. We've had several people say they're in, from across the spectrum of views on gun control, so it could be seriously beneficial to the project as a whole. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You, me, both...! I took LB's talk page off my Watch List back in July or August and haven't looked back. Unfortunately it doesn't stop us from being in the front row of the virtual mud bog races. I would fire up work on the templates for the GPTF, but I'm afraid it would be used against me somehow... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Just because... Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

hey

Hi fellow SPI target by LB! Wonderful post at AN! Quote is so typical. "If I were in my own office and had the use of both arms, I might have tried to figure out the appropriate edits you made among the others." You guys are being bullied, and it looks like finally, maybe, something will be done about it. EChastain (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if you don't mind me budding in. Given LB's latest request at ArbCom[11][12] (you were named too EC), I reached out to Karanacs about how to respond[13]. In short, I asked how to excuse myself from it and they responded with speak up right away and state the reasons why. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It looked like LB wanted me to give a statement, so I gave one. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Faceless Enemy, you weren't added as a party by the arbs. You can choose whether or not you want to the evidence page and/or the workshop subpage. Even if she mentions you or add diffs, you don't have to reply. She tried to add you and me because she still thinks we're sockpuppets, tho both of us were cleared. EChastain (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Faceless Enemy/Archive 2. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Thank you

For the edits to Seecamp, I just finished 2 real articles on those...one for Ammoland, the other for a print magazine. Been carrying mine for close to 20 years and am glad to see I'm not the only one anymore.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't own one (never even shot one), but I have always found them to be interesting little guns, made by an interesting company. And thank you for your edits; every time your name pops up on my watchlist it's either a good thing or a very good thing. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

class act

You are a class act for apologising to people for the SPI you filed that turned out to be unfounded. That was wonderful of you. EChastain (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm right when I'm right, and wrong when I'm wrong. When I'm wrong I'm not (usually) too embarrassed to admit it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You are genuinely a truly fair person. I admire your way of handling yourself! EChastain (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Et tu EC?

Wow, I didn't see that coming... EC really was a Sock!?! Go figure... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess there's always wikidrama to be had. Yeesh. I spent all day on an edit binge and that capped it off. I need to slow it down for a couple of days; there's too much craziness. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I posted my section and said my piece... A break sounds really good. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sacrificial straw man

This might be a little frustrating to find, but LB admitted to this tactic on a Talk page last year. I can't remember if it was an article or a User Talk page, but I do remember LB saying something to the effect that they come up with or post a bunch of stuff with the intention of "giving up" some of it in order to get their ideas into the article. If I can find it, I'll let you know.

I had to get creative with my searches, but I found a couple pretty obscure difs for my section. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that makes a lot of her edits make a lot more sense, in an extremely twisted way. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately... I think the posting of the "wall of references" is an offshoot of that as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What tool do you use to search user contributions? It would be cool to know in general, not just for this. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Good old fashioned dif search. I do my best to narrow the search parameters using User names and keywords as best as I can remember them along with a time frame. From there, its click... read, repeat... until I find the dif. There are apparently search tools, but I don't like using 3rd party software that isn't a part of WP. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

200px for logos?

Your message inspired me to experiment a bit and found out that the infobox 'likes' logos to be about 260px wide. Omitting size information makes logos somewhat smaller and adding over 260px, like 275px, causes the complete infobox to slightly widen on my monitor. What I see might however be a browser dependent phenomenon.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So leave that parameter blank? Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Big 10

Can you come up with a list? I can think of a few off the top of my head, but would like to see what other people would want to see, thanks for all you do.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of the largest brands have incomplete articles. (Freedom Group's coverage is pretty minimal, for one. No article on Dakota Rifles, for example. No P290 article for SIG Sauer. SIG Sauer's corporate structure is confusing and unclear.) The idea would be to identify the major brands and then to ensure that their coverage was relatively complete (at least B-Class). It would be better to hit one company at a time to ease the pain of research. But the normal Wikiproject Firearms page isn't really hopping right now, so maybe it's better to bite off a bit less at a time. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

<3

PureRED (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep up the good work. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comparing leads: National Rifle Association and Everytown for Gun Safety

Here is the lead paragraph of the National Rifle Association:

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization whose primary mission is "[to] protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...", especially the right to keep and bear arms.^[1]

^ "National Rifle Association". guidestar.org.

The NRA article is one that you must be familiar with, considering your edit history.[14]

Here is what WAS the lead for Everytown for Gun Safety:

Everytown for Gun Safety is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for federal, state, and local laws to prevent gun violence.

Which you have changed to this:

Everytown for Gun Safety is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun control.

TWICE now you removed this text, without starting a discussion. The first time you removed it, you did so with NO edit summary.[15] The second time, with this edit summary: WP:PEACOCK, WP:EUPHEMISM, "gun control" is more neutral, factual, and precise.[16]

I am going to restore the lead. Would you please start an article talk page discussion rather than delete it again? Otherwise, I think we need to start a discussion on the NRA talk page about whether or not "right to keep and bear arms" is a euphemism for "gun rights," and whether its lead sentence should simply read:

The National Rifle Association is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights.

Or maybe:

The National Rifle Association is an American nonprofit organization which advocates against gun control.

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: very good point. I can see it going either way - quoting the mission statement (with quote marks), or trying to summarize the group's general purpose in a neutral fashion. Both have significant advantages and disadvantages. More tomorrow - off to bed soon, and I don't have the brainpower right now to give this the thought it deserves. Either way, let's continue this at the Everytown talk page? Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chuck E. Cheese's logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chuck E. Cheese's logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST

Hello, Faceless Enemy, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but wouldn't I need to add a user box? I value having a red name. I just have the page watched instead. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't have to add a userbox, that is entirely up to you. While it is not in any way a requirement, long-term editors may give greater respect and credence to editors that have made a commitment to Milhist and its policies by joining. Not sure why you value having a red name. I essentially dismiss red names as newcomers who don't understand how we operate, and or who aren't interested in community norms. Very much up to you. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Red name looks cool. And I'm enough of a newbie that I'd actually appreciate people double-checking the stuff I do. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Lee–Enfield

I fixed that article (felt it was the least I could do after the bad advice I gave). Should I do a bunch of others, too, or would I be getting in the way? Chris the speller ^yack 17:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I got it, thanks. :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)