User talk:64.128.28.207

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] North Hollywood shootout edits

Your recent edit is unacceptable. Please do not swear at folk via edit summary. It is considered uncivil and a persoanl attack. We all work better when people are polite. If you do it again, I will recommend you for a lengthy block. Be nice, or be somewhere else. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Allow me to admit that I don't know the first thing about metallurgy and its applications to weapons technology. Therefore, I haven't the foggiest notion of whether steel jacketing was used or tungsten was. That being said, there are two problems with your inclusion of that infoirmation.
The first was with your delivery of said info. Wikipedia is a community of folk editing for free. We don't get paid to come here and edit and, excepting the vandals and the obvious headcases, mostly people are here because they obviously wan to contributre. They aren't getting money and they aren't getting any real public recognition for their efforts. When they don't know something, it seems a bit impolite to swear at them and belittle those efforts. It's actually considered a personal attack, and such civil attacks usually get you a warning from an editor or an admin (I consider my previous post an friendly advisement, not a warning), and subsequent issues can get you blocked.
The second problem with your tungsten vs. steel-jacketed argument is that you didn't cite any references in regards to the actual shoot-out forensics finding in your statements. You seem to have experience in this field and appear to have knowledge as to the nature of armament technical specifications. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't recognize the expert contributor; your experience/training/knowledge is considered a primary source of information, and Wikipedia explicitly uses only secondary sources of reference. Therefore, your expertise in the field cannot be used to settle disputes, unless you are literally cited in a professional or academic journal speaking on the topic. Such a source represents an appropriate secondary source. You cannot include your primary knowledge on the subject because you are not citable. Even if you were to include technical specifications of the weapons used and compare them to the heat generated by the steel-jackets items, that cannot be included either, as it is an example of Original Research by synthesis. The type of source you need to include the information can only come from some reliable source that is specifically speaking as to the weapons and armaments used in the North Hollywood Shootout. Without that, the info cannot be used at all.
Sorry for bein long-winded. You seem like the sort of person who prefers precise answers, and I wanted to oblige you. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for asking, but was your response of this morning based upon this reply from September? If so, I appreciate your knowledge of metallurgy, as I said before. As I also said before, we are not allowed to include your specific knowledge as a citable source. If you don't find the reporter's information to be credible, bring it up on the discussion page, using your knowledge there (and there only) to try and convince people that the reporter was dead wrong. You need to stay polite though, as some users and contributors have short fuses and long memories. Give it a try, and if no one seems to listen, let me know and I will pipe in as well. that sound fair? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, try the Discussion page - the number one thing that pisses off other users to no end (after vandalism) is having information reverted without discussion. the item after that is being called an idiot in the edit summary, which I think you actually managed to do as well. ;)
Seriously, though, the argument you used is not comparable. Most people know who Dahmer and Bush are; they are not as likely to know that tungsten bullets are an utter fiction. By letting your fellow editors know (and being polite about it) is the correct way to make sure it doesn't makae a reappearance in the article. Don't discount the value and reasonableness of your fellow editors. they might surprise you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you will find me a lot more willing to help you along if you are a bit more polite about it. I didn't say that your comments were stupid; to the contrary, i said that they seemed bery well-informed. I merely said that you need to discuss and sometimes defend your edits without losing your temper or end up calling people stupid or whatnot. I am here to help you if you want it; if you don't want the help, simply say so, and you can go it alone. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)