User talk:Dreg102

Welcome!

Hello, Dreg102, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Avono (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complimentary GamerGate Notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed, 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.

Avono (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unsourced. But please do go on. Dreg102 20:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, when will you stop vandalizing the page? Are you unfamiliar with what an assault rifle is? Dreg102 21:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent editing history 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 get 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I should allow incorrect information to stand? That violates the entire premise of allowing experts in a field to intervene. Dreg102 21:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Experts in a field aren't allowed to add original research to articles which is what you did when you added unsourced content that contravened the existing sourced content. Forcing your POV into articles without participating in good faith discussion to achieve consensus isn't helpful either. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If correcting terminology is "Forcing PoV", then I fear for the relevance of Wikipedia in 5 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

When you are informed that you don't have consensus for a change and are asked to be a mensch and change it back, but don't; and when you neither directly address the multitude of sources that call the weapon/sporting tool an "assault rifle" (contrary to your perspective); and when you don't respond at all to the proposed compromises; and when you offer a vague statement encouraging me to "[add] that section if [I] like", but then come back, revert the changes, and edit war with another disinterested editor—yeah, I think that qualifies as forcing POV. As to your fears for Wikipedia's relevance in 5 years, that's beyond my area of interest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except they also call it an "AR-15" It can't be both. But you refuse to read any supplied links. Dreg102 02:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it can be both. What, you think the LAPD chief, an expert in his field, with his years of experience, can't have a differing opinion or consideration of what an "assault rifle" is? Do you think that journalists, professionals in their fields, can't have a differing opinion on what an "assault weapon" is? Do you think that everybody has to adhere to one narrow definition? Do you think that your source, which has an open agenda and solicits you "to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles" is an unassailable, definitive source on all things gun? Do you think that their opinion supersedes the dozen or more references that are in the article? Rhetorical question, since I've a good sense for what your answer will be. Also, I'll point out that your position is classic synthesis. You are combining two sources (the news sources + your NSSF source) to arrive at a conclusion that is not expressly stated by either source: i.e. that Dorner used "modern sporting rifles" during his rampage. Did the NSSF write anything specifically about the Dorner rampage? Doubt it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An AR-15 is a semi-automatic ONLY firearm. An assault rifle, by definition, has the ability to fire in either burst, or fully automatic. Dorner, being not related to the firearm industry, would not be covered by the NSSF. The police are there to protect, they are not there to provide expertise on firearms. Dreg102 04:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)