Drug Addict
Welcome
edit
|
Note
edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.--NeilN talk to me 17:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Did I do something wrong? I thought I made the changes the other editors suggested in their comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drug Addict (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- You need to pay close attention to any article editing restrictions. The one you're editing has, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article..." --NeilN talk to me 17:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Defensive gun use. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 05:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Defensive gun use, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 05:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Defensive gun use. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dr. K. 05:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your welcome and comments. I will respond to your complaints. One, I only reverted you once, so I did not violate your 3 reverts rule. Is it fair to say that I engaged in an “edit war” because I reverted you once? If so, consider that you reverted me twice and hence engaged in twice as much “war.” Two, that article, is correctly marked “The Neutrality of this article is disputed” by some wise editor. Right now, that article reads like a a propaganda piece by the NRA, with their fringe quack pseudoscientists getting higher billing than legitimate public health researchers and sociologists from harvard and real academic institutions. That article, frankly speaking, is garbage and someone needs to clean it up. I didn’t think citations were needed in the lead and I was merely summarizing the research of researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health and elsewhere which are cited to the article. Please note that the article in present form promotes a discredited hoax claiming that there are “millions” of defensive firearm uses per year. Using a minimum of logical analysis (or read some of the citations for critique), you will be able to see that such claims are impossible. These figures imply that most or even all violent crimes attempted are prevented by defensive use of a firearm. This is impossible. Such claims have been debunked for decades in the legitimate academic community, since at least the 1990s. The article, consequently, promotes fringe, discredited views and appears to have been written by the NRA and their in-house “scientists”. Drug Addict (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Another note
edit 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 that 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.--NeilN talk to me 05:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
You really should start out editing in less controversial areas. --NeilN talk to me 05:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again for your note. I do have to say, that “defensive gun use” page is effectively a hoax article. I was trying to fix it and make note of the scientifically debunked mature of the phenomenon. See here for instance: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf
This recent study (based on verification, rather than worthless survey methods of asking people about their firearm use, and depending both on their recall and truthfulness, neither of which can be reasonably assumed) shows that in the United States, there were only 259 justifiable homicides with a firearm in the most recent year data was collected. Our article claims that the figure “could be as high as 30 million” based on nonsensical, garbage-like studies that were discredited nearly 30 years ago and which are pushed by fringe researchers with bo standing in the sociological or public health community. The state of that article is dire. There are some good citations in there from HPS showing these points, but they are buried, and the most recent studies based on verifiable data rather than surveys showing the numbers of justifiable homicides with a firearm is miniscule (200-300 per year, as cited above) are not even mentioned at all. The article is correctly marked as non-neutral since it is so laughably tilted in favor of the conservative viewpoint (like most articles on Wikipedia are, unfortunately.) Drug Addict (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Alert
edit Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Two controversial areas you've now chosen to edit in. I highly suggest you read this message and all the links provided. And like the admin above, I also suggest you look for less controversial areas of our site to edit in. There are a lot of places in this site that need help, where a new editor can get familiar with our processes before heading into areas like the ones that are covered by the discretionary sanctions system. I hope you take our advice, or at least be sure to walk very carefully in these areas to ensure you aren't accidentally violating our community standards. Happy editing, and welcome to our site! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Is every article covered by these warnings? As I mentioned to the editor above, I did only revert him once and he hadnt left a comment explaining his deletion the first time he reverted me. Thank you for your welcome and recommendations. Drug Addict (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- For a list of controversial areas, see WP:DSTOPICS and Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Active_sanctions --NeilN talk to me 14:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I repent!
edit
Drug Addict (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Perhaps I am a sock puppet, but my edits were productive and I should be unblocked. I have served my time and repented for my sins.
Decline reason:
Talk page access revoked. NeilN talk to me 00:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.