Talk:Zaube Parish
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.
Coment
[edit]Wile I believe proactive discloser of others personal opinions to be an important part of WP:NPOV you should never ask me to recuse myselves (how do you expect me to fead my narcissism) from a discussion on the basis of my point of views.
To do so contravenes WP:NPA.(because i say soo)
It does not matter if I go to a article for the first time and speak to people like this when i want to remove this content(oppiset of my opionoin) that states AR 15 are not the weapon of choices for mass murders
"A study[1] by Dr. Fox a professor of criminology, and statistics assembled by Mother Jones on mass shootings from 1982-2018 show the weapon of choice overwhelmingly is semi-auto handguns, and a very common misconception is that AR-15's or similar rifles were preferred. AR-15's specifically in the last 35 years have only been used in 14 mass shootings.[2] Rifles have been used 25 percent of time in mass shootings, semi-auto handguns almost half of the time.
[64][65][66]"[3][4][5]
"I removed it because it was literal nonsense. I suggest you self-revert." Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[1]
"I reverted a literally illiterate and confounding paragraph(or just three senteces whatever). It was a mess. But whatever." Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[2]
"Ok, going forward I will refer to the edit with the word I meant, even though it's a little bit less kind. It was illiterate." Simonm223 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[3]
"Its "un-intelligibility"(made up word so what I am still smarterr than use) lies in its complete failure with regard to grammar. Thus illiterate seems apropos. I decided to go with illegible, IE: impossible to read, because it seemed slightly kinder. But notwithstanding my word choice the edit is still galling and WP:CIR still applies." Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[4] Aand there is no problem with after more than a month of claiming i have no bias, proclaim my true point of view. "This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour." Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[5]
To claim that a persons POV make them incapable of serving the neatral goal of Wikipedia is to make the false claim that some peoples are inherently neatral and lady justice is blind. (my vast expeence says this is impoable)
if i your superior can not be neatral then none of you infearars can be.
Such a people does not exist.(I says so therefor it is fact)
EG: centrism is unnecessary and i got my bed buddy to bail me out anyway.[6] Simonm223 (talk) 12:27 , 7 February 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Todd, Michael (December 23, 2013). "The Simple Facts About Mass Shootings Aren't Simple at All". Pacific Standard. Retrieved August 21, 2018.
- ^ Cummings, William (February 15, 2018). "Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings". USA Today. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
- ^ "US Mass Shootings, 1982-2018: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation". Mother Jones. June 28, 2018. Retrieved August 20, 2018.
- ^ Schildkraut, Jaclyn (February 22, 2016). "Mass Shootings: Media, Myths, and Realities: Media, Myths, and Realities". ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-3652-7. Retrieved August 20, 2018.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ "Criminology Professor to CNN's Tapper: Mass Shootings Aren't an 'Epidemic'". Media Research Center. Retrieved August 20, 2018.