User talk:SaltyBoatr
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, it may be a day or two before you receive a reply.
If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Rezon8 Living
Am hoping for some clarification of your suggestion for deletion. Information that paints an accurate picture does not in and of itself equal Vanity because it is positive. I would suggest that WIKI being what it is, others will no doubt be able to contribute and that, in doing so, an accurate picture is revealed. You want to talk about vanity? How has the Billy Mann entry been allowed to exist for so long? Also, the IKEA page is not without certain negative aspects that seem a bit unnecessary, yet continue to exist. Thanks, Dean.
TUSC token b2b7c4679cceebaba3eea1f39739e896
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
TUSC token 7aaa90f5dff35780fe0322a027d0a238
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Acknowledgment for your long efforts
ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Second Amendment
File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)I have sent the Second Amendment article to dispute resolution.
Please feel free to comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution GreekParadise (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I've also posted a RfC. Please help resolve this.GreekParadise (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
dr
Just in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition 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/List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition 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. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please stop making accusations on the talk page. We are actively discussing your concerns, additional attacks are un-needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Topic ban
Consensus has developed on the Administrator's noticeboard to topic ban you from firearms related articles and article talk pages. Please cease editing articles related to firearms for 6 months or you may face further blocks and an increased length to the topic ban.--v/r - TP 17:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Salty - Please note that while you are topic banned only from articles and article talk pages in the topic area that your continued participation in the topic area in other venues such as ANI will be seem as attempting to push the boundaries of the topic ban. You need to get out of the topic and move on to other topics to show us you're making a good faith attempt to abide by it instead of a bad faith attempt to continue to participate in the topic area while not crossing the bright lines.--v/r - TP 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just struck my comments there upon your advice. I still do care about the effect of this ANI policy on the encyclopedia, and silencing my opinion about systemic editor bias entrenched in encyclopedia seems a bit strict. But, I do care about the appearances that my actions seem like bad faith, so I will shut up. Thanks for the advice. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are two ways to approach that. The first is to wait until you topic ban expires which is recommended. The second is to open a thread on WP:AN about yourself and lay out your case. If you do that, focus on your behavior and why it isn't as terrible as originally imagined or how you'll improve. Don't make accusations against others or it'll likely backfire and you'll get your topic ban extended. Of course, these are only recommendations, but I'm fairly experienced and have seen many topic bans be appealed.--v/r - TP 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The honest truth is that I am now inclined to abandon my donations to Wikipedia entirely, as thousands of hours I have spent trying to make the encyclopedia better do not appear to be appreciated. There are other causes in the World that certainly would appreciate my help. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is what it is. It's not a perfect system, but when you can see it operating on a wider spectrum, you realize the diversity of personalities, politics, and opinions and for the most part we make it work.--v/r - TP 20:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon me, I have seen Wikipedia operate, having made 13,000 edits on 2,000 pages over eight years time. I grant you, 'for the most part', it works. I don't see it working in this specific instance. In certain topic areas that have enthusiasm gaps, like gun politics, coalitions of politically motivated editors can 'own' articles over a period of years and use the ANI process to ban neutral editors. Systemic editor bias is entrenched in Wikipedia. In plain sight. The neutral tone of voice in this type of article is determined by the energy level of the editors who chose to own those articles. It is what it is. And, the encyclopedia suffers from it. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is what it is. It's not a perfect system, but when you can see it operating on a wider spectrum, you realize the diversity of personalities, politics, and opinions and for the most part we make it work.--v/r - TP 20:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The honest truth is that I am now inclined to abandon my donations to Wikipedia entirely, as thousands of hours I have spent trying to make the encyclopedia better do not appear to be appreciated. There are other causes in the World that certainly would appreciate my help. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are two ways to approach that. The first is to wait until you topic ban expires which is recommended. The second is to open a thread on WP:AN about yourself and lay out your case. If you do that, focus on your behavior and why it isn't as terrible as originally imagined or how you'll improve. Don't make accusations against others or it'll likely backfire and you'll get your topic ban extended. Of course, these are only recommendations, but I'm fairly experienced and have seen many topic bans be appealed.--v/r - TP 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just struck my comments there upon your advice. I still do care about the effect of this ANI policy on the encyclopedia, and silencing my opinion about systemic editor bias entrenched in encyclopedia seems a bit strict. But, I do care about the appearances that my actions seem like bad faith, so I will shut up. Thanks for the advice. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)