User talk:Silencertalk

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Silencertalk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7.62×35mm

In regards to this edit: no. You do not have that right, and you do not own the article. Moreover, we don't do forums. See WP:ELNO. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 7.62×35mm, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Hallows AG (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

300 blackout

saw your edit/revert on the blackout article. I have a great interest in the 300 platform (saving up for an upper now!), and as you have a potential WP:COI I would be happy to assist with reviewing any edits or working with you to include any information which may be helpful. let me know on any matters that you would like to collaborate. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved as previously discussed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Based on some completely unrelated articles, Wikipedia has gone through some changes in the way it deals with paid editors and editors with a Conflict of Interest, please be careful editing the 300 blk article, as I believe you have previously disclosed that you are an employee or representative of AAC. It would be helpful if you would re-disclose your relationship with AAC and 300blk to be clear, and make sure you are editing within the wikipedia bounds of neutrality, and verifiability. You have access to a lot of information that while true, is not easily verifiable, because it may be based on personal knowledge or internal documents. Such information cannot be used on wikipedia. If you have any questions or need any help, please respond here or on my talk page, I'm a big fan of 300blk, and I am happy to help. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remington R51 edits

Please refrain from unsourced edits to the Remington R51 article. You have been warned prior about Conflict of Interest WP:COI edits to articles. Since you have stated that you work for a competing firearms company and you could seemingly gain from making edits to other manufacturers' product pages, it seems that you should let somebody else make the correction. I am very interested in this product and will find a source that agrees with you. I agree that the length is not 6", but that is based on my Original Research. At the moment, all we have to go by are sources that can't even spell "Pedersen" right and then argue with you about it when you point it out. Patience. --Winged Brick (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein

Regarding this and this, stop adding that WP:Undue, unsourced material. Even with the source you included the first time you added it, here's the thing: Unless a WP:Reliable source talks about him being inaccurately described as a pedophile, it is WP:Synthesis for an editor to use that source and state or imply that in the article. Also, "even though there was no allegation that he was ever interested in anyone who was not a biological adult (the youngest accusation was age 14)" is POV, considering that people may define "biological adult" differently. For example, some people may define it as someone who is post-pubescent. And even if you added a source that supports your "incorrectly called a pedophile" text, it's still the case that the material you added is not needed. That section is not meant to be a collection of examples. One example for the aspect mentioned is enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I'm replying here. I prefer to keep discussion centralized (a route mentioned by WP:TALKCENT). Regarding the Foley example, it fits because the text in the article is the following: "The terms hebephilia or ephebophilia may be more accurate in these cases. This was especially seen in the case of Mark Foley during the congressional page incident. Most of the media labeled Foley a pedophile, which led David Tuller of Slate magazine to state that Foley was not a pedophile but rather an ephebophile." It mentions ephebophilia and then has Tuller speaking of Foley with regard to ephebophilia. This source you cited on my talk page says that Epstein is not a pedophile. It does not say that he is an ephebophile. So it does not fit better than the Foley example given in the section. But looking back, I think it's time that the Foley example be removed since it's not needed and there can be WP:BLP concerns. So I removed it.

Your statement that your primary reason for wanting to add Epstein is that "nobody knows who Mark Foley is anymore" is an opinion that is obviously not true and is based on recentism; see WP:Recentism. Epstein is in the news now, but he won't be in news years from now. Even at this point in time he is barely in the news anymore. People not being in the news does not mean that other people forgot them. It does mean that newer generations won't know who they are unless they read or are told about it, or see it on a video about a past matter. Also, I think the reason you want to add Epstein is the same reason this source took the time to dive into medical definitions; you want society to know that Epstein is not technically a pedophile. I also don't know what proof you have that the Mark Foley scandal wasn't international news.

As for "biological adult," it's still POV per what I stated above. The Adult article you pointed me to -- an article that I watch and occasionally edit -- currently has unsourced text for its statement on biological adulthood. That is, except for the "the stage of the life cycle of an animal after reproductive capacity has been attained" piece that is supported by two old dictionary sources. It's still the case that people and sources may define "biological adult" differently, including defining it as someone who is post-pubescent. You speak of sexual maturity. But like the Sexual maturity article makes clear, "in humans, puberty encompasses the process of sexual maturation." The text doesn't say that they are exactly the same thing. A person who is in early puberty may be capable of reproduction, but this doesn't mean they have attained full sexual maturity. They haven't. There is a reason that, like our Teenage pregnancy article states, "there are additional concerns for those under the age of 15 as they are less likely to be physically developed to sustain a healthy pregnancy or to give birth." In other words, if these girls were complete biological adults, this problem wouldn't exist for their age range. Girls 15 and over have a better chance of carrying a pregnancy to term. And "biological adult" was still your wording, not the source's wording.

I don't agree with adding Epstein as an example. And I see no need for a real-life example (or fictional example, for that matter) in that section. If you reply again, I ask that you reply here (not on my talk page). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you can tell, I know very little about how to communicate on Wikipedia. I wrote on your page because I didn't know you would ever see anything that I wrote on my page. In fact I still don't know if you will ever see this.

I am not sure if there should be a real-world example or not - I just thought that Foley was rather too much local US politics and Epstein was far more well known (the google search was 300 times more results). I didn't remove Foley in my original edit because I didn't want to kill someone else's edit.

We know a few things. One is that Epstein is a very well known person due to massive media coverage, including internationally. Two is that he has been routinely accused of being a pedophile. Three is that there is no evidence that he was a pedophile. That seems to quality for misuse of the term.

My goal in writing you was not to give an argument that would directly meet the Wikipedia standards, as I know that I cannot do that - so yes, your kickbacks on my points were justified. I was hoping you would agree that a better example came along, and you could use some reference to edit it in a way that does hold up to the standards. If there should not be a real-world example, then fine. Why do I care at all? I am pedantic, and it really bugged me when people were using the term incorrectly without even realizing it.

Silencertalk (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We were all newbies once. So you not quite understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or how to edit Wikipedia is expected. If an editor doesn't have your talk page on their WP:Watchlist or doesn't intend to check back for a reply, they won't see your reply unless you WP:Ping them (if they have pinging enabled, which they usually do). I don't think I had your talk page watchlisted until recently; so I would not have seen your reply unless you pinged me. I did intend to check back this time. And after this post, I will check back one more time, but I will remove your talk page from watchlist after that.

I understand that it bugged you that people were using the term incorrectly without even realizing it or caring. As seen by this source you pointed to, so was the author of that source and so are experts. It's why we mention the misuse in the article and why I added the Foley piece years ago.

Something else that I meant to point out is that WP:Undue is not just about WP:Fringe material such as "the Earth is flat." This is why it states, for example, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." It also has the "Balancing aspects" and "Giving 'equal validity' can create a false balance" subsections.

On a side note: I indented your post above; see WP:Indent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm William Allen Simpson. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Aunt Jemima have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Your careless edit also broke the article's reference system!

Well at least you fixed the broken link to citation 14. I did read the citation after you found a working link, and it offers no evidence that applying an honorific title such as Aunt or Uncle to a much-loved caretaker of your children is offensive. Someone simply found someone who stated this in an attempt to further their narrative.