User talk:NationalInterest16

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Bull Connor. 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Talk page comments

Hi NationalInterest16. Here are some guides you should read to help you when you post comments on a talk page.

WP:TALK
WP:THREAD
WP:INDENT
If you add citations to a talk page, be sure to add a {{reflist talk}} after your comments so that the footnotes don't float to the bottom.

Happy editing!- Mr X 13:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith

Your first paragraph here isn't appropriate. The Hillary Clinton article is about controversial stuff, and I can understand passions run high around it; but nevertheless we need to keep discourse respectful on the talkpage — especially on controversial pages. There is no respect in suggesting another user is "worrying solely about protecting the image of HRC" as opposed to worrying about providing accurate information about her life. Don't talk about other users' opinions, let alone their feelings (worrying); comment on content, not on the contributor. You are not able to inspect the inside of their head, and remarks like that have a strong tendency to make the atmosphere on talkpages toxic. You may find the guideline WP:Assume good faith helpful: "assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." Bishonen | talk 22:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

October 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Donald Trump, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Murph9000 (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! Either way, it is still incorrect. The style guide says that the ellipses should be used as following "The dog was walking...to the house." I believe there should not be space after the ellipses, or am I reading the style guide wrong? NationalInterest16 (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

I see you learned something from my comment above about assuming good faith,[1][2] though not exactly what I wished you to learn. Could you tell me what post/s by NorthBySouthBaranof and Sławomir Biały you're complaining about, please? If you have trouble producing diffs, you can just tell me the pages and the times and dates and I'll find them. (See however Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide — if you're here for the long haul, you'll need to learn to create diffs.) Bishonen | talk 11:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

"Please learn a little American political history. See Conservative Democrat. This is already an established concept, and there is no need to invent a new term for it" Sławomir Biały This was on the Bull Connor talk page. 12:09, 2 October 2016 NationalInterest16 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I suggest that before jumping into controversial articles about political figures you hold strong personal opinions about, you take some time to review our policies and guidelines on content and sourcing, particularly."[3] NorthBySouthBaranof 08:44, 3 October 2016 Perhaps I misread the policies but these seemed like valid instances. Thanks in advance for the help. I have not yet learned how to add diffs, but will be making an effort to do so. NationalInterest16 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you did misread the guideline, or at least overapply it. Those seem to me reasonable remarks in the context in which they were spoken, especially with SB's reference to the term Conservative Democrat, which we actually have an article for. Also, you told them both their edits were "in bad faith", which would be a serious accusation, if you meant it. But probably you didn't, since you referred to the AGF guideline, which says we need to assume that others are in good faith — that they're trying to help the encyclopedia and not mess it up. Saying 'your edit was in bad faith, see WP:AGF' is kind of paradoxical. I hope this makes sense. Bishonen | talk 15:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Season's Greetings

I have been caught up in holiday festivities and must apologize for my delay in responding to your question at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting. While I share your concern about misunderstandings created by selective use of half-truths, my opinions will be perceived as synthesis or original research in the absence of source citations which will be time consuming to locate; and answering here may avoid a flurry of objections on that basis. I assume you are already aware of the following comments, so I don't mean to be pedantic. I offer them only in the hope my thoughts may inspire your creation of alternative language to convey the information to an audience with differing preconceptions.

Cyclic rate of fire applies only to fully automatic weapons; because semi-automatic weapons require non-mechanized trigger activation. The old Gatling gun is a good basis of illustration. The hand cranked version was not originally defined as an automatic weapon, but the motorized versions are, because they have a uniformly measurable cyclic rate of fire for multiple shots activated by a single motor switch.

Effective rate of fire is the only means of comparing fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms. The initial basis for variation is the ability of the shooter to rapidly reactivate the trigger; but the the most dramatic difference will be based on magazine capacity because changing magazines takes significantly more time than trigger activation. The effective rate of fire will be similar for automatic and semi-automatic weapons using similarly sized magazines.

Few people have first hand experience shooting, so most of them rely upon Hollywood's portrayal of gunfights. Hollywood finds the sound of multiple gunshots more threatening than the single aimed sniper shot, so most audiences perceive that sound as more threatening than the single aimed shot. While I understand the increased random probability of hits with multiple bullets, I have found individually aimed shots more effective for hand-held weapons. Unfortunately, hitting the target isn't part of our definition of effective rate of fire; and differing target scenarios have prevented development of widely accepted means of comparing how many bullets can be put on target per unit of time.

An Army marksmanship instructor had a revealing experience in Vietnam where he provided refresher training to platoons with combat experience. He would begin by asking the platoon to identify their worst shot; and they would typically identify someone reminiscent of Gomer Pyle. While the remainder of the platoon was attending some training lecture or film, the instructor would take the platoon's worst shot to the rifle range and show him how to zero his rifle. He found most combat troops were issued rifles when they reported to Vietnam rather than traveling with the rifles they had used in training. Few of them had zeroed the newly issued rifles they used in combat. When the remainder of the platoon finished their alternative training session, they rejoined Gomer at the rifle range where they were to empty one magazine at a man sized silhouette. I'm uncertain of the distance, but my recollection is 100 yards. Gomer was required to shoot with the semi-automatic setting from a prone position, while each of the other soldiers was instructed to use whatever position and setting they felt was most effective. Most chose to fire fully automatic from a standing position. The instructor reported the result was almost always the same: Gomer had more hits on target than the combined total of the remainder of the platoon.

Although less than an hour of time taken for everyone to zero their rifles could theoretically have provided the same result, it took the shock value of being beaten by Gomer Pyle to shake off the underlying belief (of combat-experienced soldiers!!!) that full automatic fire was more effective than individually aimed shots. We can hope our all-volunteer military training program takes advantage of that experience, but the 2015 San Bernardino attack is discouraging because the criminals obtained a much higher number of casualties per shot fired than the police did. The most dismaying part of that comparison is the probability of collateral damage from bullets missing their intended target. Since the police and criminals are often using the same caliber weapons, there is some ambiguity about whose bullet caused the damage; but official police reports usually conclude they were fired by the criminals, and those reports of debatable neutrality are usually the only sources available.

I sincerely hope both of us can put these frustrations aside for long enough to enjoy this holiday season. Thewellman (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information on the cyclical rate of fire. It certainly makes sense that only an automatic could have a cyclical firing rate. Thank you also for the Vietnam example, I have found it nearly impossible to explain to people terrified about automatics that accurate shooters are far more deadly. The larger point of my discussion on that page was to eliminate the nonsense about bump stocks making that tragedy possible. I look forward to writing with you in the future and hope you have a good holliday season! NationalInterest16 (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanction Notification (re-upped)

Please be aware of the following:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]