User talk:GrumpyAC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, GrumpyAC, 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:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! TMS63112 05:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claire McCaskill

In accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, could you cite a source that explicitly states that McCaskill was responsible for changing the ballot language? --TommyBoy 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That was given by a weblink.

I'll repeat ballot language

These are facts verifiable by dates and the position of Claire McCaskill in that timeline. Co-conspirators included Governor Mel Caranhan, his daughter Robin Carnahan, Handgun Control Inc., and most prominently, the Clinton/Gore Administration.

further information is available here:

http://www.moccw.org/language.html http://www.moccw.org/nrapropb.html http://www.moccw.org/pressreleases.html http://www.moccw.org/news.html

ArmedCitizen 06:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm attempting to create a page for the 1999 Proposition B in Missouri.

This Image in a SMALL box is making me crazy. http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Armed2003/rtc.gif

ArmedCitizen 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replies

First of all, have you requested and been granted permission to use that map from gun-nuttery.com yet? If not, you'll need to redraw the map yourself. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted permission means grant of use under a free license such as GFDL, rather than permission just for use on wikipedia. --pgk^(talk) 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a direct link to their website?

either smaller image

[[1]]

to transport to the larger image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:s_2006.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:s_1999.gif

Both inside a small box to the side of the text.

ArmedCitizen 00:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] helpme

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.)

I contacted the webmaster and received permission and the above link.

original image http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif

couldn't upload it to wiki either. got "f---" expletive when I closed that window.

ArmedCitizen 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey there.

Here you go, follow the instructions Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed to verify the licensing.

As for the image, all you have to do is interlink it. It showed up using [[Image:Rtc.gif]] as the tag.

If anyone is concerned, he has my permission to use the images.--jdege 12:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy editing to you! Teke ^(talk) 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Helpme

[[Image:Rtc.gif|thumb]

The thumbnail size (in a box) still doesn't work.

ArmedCitizen 04:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's because you have to complete dimensions when you make a thumb:

That was produced by [[Image:Rtc.gif|thumb|300px|right]]. Complete the string with the appropriate image size (usually under 300px), and you're ready to roll. Teke ^(talk) 05:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. thanks

ArmedCitizen 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox won't save this

Hi, can you clarify what you mean by this please? - Tangotango 13:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sandbox wouldn't save this for review. Its now available in User:ArmedCitizen/Sandbox for review.

ArmedCitizen 14:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Citizensuspect.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Citizensuspect.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helpme

First off, please do not redirect your talk page to your sandbox. Talk pages are important.

Now, do me a favor, would you? Go to [2] and give me the precise name of the image uploaded, because I'm not seeing it. Teke ^(talk) 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not stored on my computer its on the website for MPS.

There isn't an option to direct link to the website.

The email with permission from the first website can't be sent to the email address displayed for archived needs.

ArmedCitizen 05:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

still can't email the webmasters response to grant permission for the images and text.

is there an email address that isn't a broken link?

ArmedCitizen 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Email address for who? The wikipedia emails all work, which one are you trying? If it's the website you've obtained the image from then that's beyond the realms of the helpme system. --pgk 17:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

permissions AT wikimedia DOT org

Does NOT work.

confirmation emails have been forwarded per instructions to permissions@wikimedia.org

No direct links found here (*¿*)

ArmedCitizen 01:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Hi. You've been adding "{{Wikipedia:Peer review/1999 Proposition B in Missouri}}" to Peer review, and I see you've now created the corresponding subpage. But there is no article entitled "1999 Proposition B in Missouri". What are you trying to have reviewed? I suggest that you please follow the nomination procedure. -- bcasterline • talk 21:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArmedCitizen/Sandbox

I don't know why the article didn't pop up.

How do I get the sandbox page entered now?

ArmedCitizen 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To make an article of that, click on the move tab above the title to the right of "edit this page" -- where it says "To new title:", enter 1999 Proposition B in Missouri, or whatever title is appropriate. Alternatively you can create the 1999 Proposition B in Missouri from scratch (by clicking on that link), and copy and paste the text from User:ArmedCitizen/Sandbox.

Then follow the peer review nomination procedure if you'd like some feedback. Having just looked over the article quickly, though, I can tell you it needs some work. You might want to read through some of Wikipedia's style guides and other policies, such as neutral point of view. -- bcasterline • talk 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles Linking to User Page

I've noticed articles for several Missouri politicians linking to one of your user pages. Please don't do this. If you feel your user page article should be a real article, then you should make it one and then link to the real article page. But it is not appropriate to link an article to a user page. As there is currently no article for Prop B, I'd strongly suggest that you add it as a real article, and then add back links where approrpiate (with citations, and Neutral POV). kenj0418 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My name is Ken. I am a software developer in St. Louis, Missouri.

Were you in St. Louis back in 1999?

Yes, I've lived in St. Louis my whole life (The answer to the next question from any St. Louisian is: Academy of Math and Science (one of the city's Magnet schools -- now merged into a different school))

If you were, you witnessed the events around Prop B

Yes, but just as a voter. I was not involved in any other way. I'm commenting here on general wikipedia principles, not based on any specific view on or knowledge of Prop B events.

I'll gladly move it into the main listing. But, I'm afraid it would be vandalized beyond recognition.

If you mean out and out vandalism, then you shouldn't worry to much, that sort of thing is reverted pretty quickly (and could happen even when it is a user page). If you mean unacceptable edits, well, that's part of how wikipedia works. You can always watch the page after you create it and monitor for and discuss any changes you believe are inaccurate or reduce the quality of the article. There are also formal and informal dispute resolution process available if that becomes necessary.

What citations are missing? What POV problems is there within my article?

That was a general statement regarding all articles -- not an evaluation of the article. I didn't review the article in detail. The only POV problem I am aware of was with the text linking to the article, which characterised one or more of the politicians as 'causing the defeat of Proposition B' (or something to that effect). This sort of statement is POV, as it your (and possibly others) belief that this was the cause, not a statement of objective fact. If this is a commonly held view (either generally, or among a particular interest group), then a statement like "Smith's choice of ballot language was viewed by supporters of the Proposition as a leading cause of its defeat" would be preferred instead of "Smith's choice of ballot language caused the measure to be defeated".

ArmedCitizen 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

reply: kenj0418 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Doing "articles" that are nothing but a rephrasing of the title have been done to death. That's the sort of behavior that may lead you to being blocked for vandalism of this site. Please don't do it again. - Lucky 6.9 03:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you must have better things to do. Did you read any of the above suggestion from bcasterline ?

ArmedCitizen 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You have a fine new article and I had no way whatsoever of knowing what your intentions were. It's just that there were nonsensical edits of the type I mentioned arriving by the hundreds each day prior to the block of new articles by unregistered users. - Lucky 6.9 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a tough time pulling in all the 'cited' information, getting approval from the webmasters, and then getting this Prop B article out of the sandbox. Being new to this protocol - I'm an idiot. I'm sure your screen is covered with hundreds if not thousands of nonsense edits. I do not envy the task done by the volunteer army you must need to 'keep the peace'.

I’ve roamed the Wiki domain and use it often as a source of information to many other projects. This was my first attempt to give information here. The Pro-Gun movement now has 48 states that understand the need for self-protection.

I’ll have to do something in the section about my background - but that will have to wait for another weekend project to create the appropriate boxes and graphics.

ArmedCitizen 05:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the wondrous world of wiki-working, my friend. I can't recall a better-looking article from a new user in a long time. I'm terribly sorry about the mix-up. Happens a lot around here since we can't deal with one another in real time. - Lucky 6.9 07:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

Hi! First let me once again WELCOME you to Wikipedia. It's great when new members are willing to lend their time and expertise to write and edit aricles on topics that interest them. As a new editor, let me strongly encourage you to carefully read Wikipedia's policies especially the neutral point of view policy.

Based on your user name and your edits, it seems that you have strong feelings about gun politics. It's natural to write about a topic that interests you and that you feel strongly about. However, when writing about a controversial topic, it is importatnt to remember that Wikipedia is an encycolpedia. it is not a forum to promote one viewpoint or another on those issues, but a place to report the facts on those issues and to give a balanced account of the opinions on both sides. Thanks again for your contributions and happy editing! TMS63112 04:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, My nickname does instill into the reader's mind to facts not in evidence. I’ve adopted this Nickname from the NRA since I do give counseling/instructions/training for the NRA. I do NOT represent the NRA in any fashion. I welcome constructive feedback to better the article. When any reader drops POV into our article without first giving constructive feedback, I see that as a 'sour grapes' issue without merit.

Drop in and give my article a visit. I've added the anti-gun websites for those States of tyrannical rule with no form of self-protection for their law-abiding citizenry.

ArmedCitizen 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname change

Is it possible to change my nickname to something not as offensive to the anti-gun crowd - ie., Snoopy Doc Sleepy

ArmedCitizen 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The only 'inappropriate username' criteria that would seem applicable would be "Names that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view ". I wouldn't consider your nickname offensive (but I'm not in the anti-gund crowd either). However, if you want it changed then you can look at Wikipedia:Username on how to go about this. If you are yourself supporting the change, then it should be pretty easy to get done. kenj0418 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The password should have been transferred, along with all of your other account settings, to 'SleepyAC' -- all I can suggest is that you try again. If you're quite sure your old password does not work with your new account (which would be the first instance of this ever happening, as far as I know) then you'd have to contact a developer, since I do not have access to passwords and other such. — Dan | talk 15:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin Jamison

A tag has been placed on Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin Jamison, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin Jamison is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin Jamison. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. -- Merope 18:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the WP community has already decided we don't need an article on Kevin Jamison: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Jamison. Mango juice^talk 19:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Try reviewing the guidelines for biographies at Wikipedia:Notability people. Also, recreating content from a deleted article is a criteria for speedy deletion. eaolson 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How about creating short little stubs with just the bare minimum of information ("X is a lawyer in Missouri notable for his support of Proposition B", for example) and putting the external link in the external links section of that stub? Then other editors could fill in the blanks later, if a more extensive article is warranted. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a finished product, so stub articles and dangling red links are not an inherently bad thing to have. Bryan 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, tried that. Now I'm in hot water with another editor.

Category: Candidates for speedy deletion

ArmedCitizen 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How cute. One says I can and another says I'm wrong.

Y'all need to check with each other.

ArmedCitizen 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve McGhee

I deleted the article you created, Steve McGhee, because the article did not cite a third-party sources relating to him; that's, fundamentally, what notability means - that a topic has been noted by indenpendant sources. The url in the article, learntocarry.com/news/ , did not, when I checked it just now, mention McGhee's name anywyhere on the page. I'm not exactly sure what Bryan's comment above was in reference to, but, no matter the size of an article, if it does not demonstrate notability, it will likely be deleted; if a person, speedily deleted. Good luck on your further Wikipedia efforts. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I pasted the wrong website - should have been http://www.mcgheetraining.com/index.html

ooops can't edit its gone

ArmedCitizen 07:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Please only mark edits as minor when they truly are. I realize it can be confusing what Wikipedians mean by "minor," but a rule of thumb is that if you are adding significant text (for example, here) or a change that could be disputed like this change that caught my attention, then the change is not minor. That second change makes me think I should point you to the policy that no one owns articles on Wikipedia. It looks like you are doing some good work on 1999 Proposition B in Missouri, so keep up the good work (while remembering that anyone can and will mercilessly edit the article)! -Phoenixrod 09:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of editing policy but still can't understand how 'cute' remarks given in conjunction with a request is removed unless there was intent. How do you see the message unless your bent on finding something wrong or attempting to reach utopian heights of perfection?

GrumpyAC 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Cute" remarks don't belong in article space. Keep them in talk pages if you must make them at all. Furthermore, your "request" [3] was counter to policy -- no one needs to answer to you to edit Wikipedia pages. How is it relevant how I saw the comments at the top of the article? Please assume good faith; I'm trying to better the encyclopedia, not actively tracking down anyone or anything as you seem to imply. I simply had the article on my watchlist and saw your most recent edit, which removed a seemingly valid merge request and replaced it with the diff I provided. I still don't understand why you removed the merge request in the first place, but I have posted my question on the article's talk page. Believe me, I'm not trying to be a policy hound; I thought you would be interested to know about minor edits, as your contributions seemed to use the "m" tag haphazardly. -Phoenixrod 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Grumpy, did you actually read the policy on minor edits that I pointed you to above? Here's a relevant portion of the intro: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Your edits seem to be following the same pattern as before: nearly everything you do gets the "m" marker. Please remember that anything controversial, including additions/removals of text beyond simple spelling/grammar/formatting corrections, is not a minor edit. In particular, this edit concerns me; besides removing an entire notice from another editor without leaving an edit summary, that edit is considered vandalism -- "Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism." Don't blank notices from other users. I know there are a lot of policies to wade through when you start editing here, but you'll get a feel for them. -Phoenixrod 13:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add to the article under construction?

This type of childish tripe is a waste of time.

I was the victim and not the instigator.

Should I put a warning here for you to never make further comments?

Little warhead has done nothing constructive either. I took the issue to the instigator and kept the topic current on that talk page. (just like a chit-chat forum where cats fight) Should I clutter this page with that garbage also?

EVERY edit has the minor checkmarked automatically. I remove it when more than a few words or a citation has been changed. Thanks for the 'Dear Abby' advice. I'll keep that in mind.

GrumpyAC 15:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that message is completely uncalled for. I have tried to assume good faith and recommend that you follow policy. But resorting to vandalism (blanking), personal attacks (as pointed out previously by Thatcher131, and removing messages when other editors, including admins, point out how you can improve Wikipedia? I don't get it. *shrug*. You are right: this childish tripe is a waste of time. So please read the policies and follow them. And don't bite off people's heads when they point it out. As I look through your edit history, I have a hard time seeing you as a "victim". As for the minor edit button, change your preferences. I assume you are capable of that without my pointing you to another policy you will ignore. -Phoenixrod 15:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Judging from your userpage - your capable of creating something of merit. Becoming a Wiki Board member?

If I come over as snippy - I don't chit-chat well unless its over a nice table filled with good food. I do have a personal life. And more ladies than my wife would ever allow.

GrumpyAC 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Clinton and gun control

You added a whole section on gun control to Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies. However, about half the material had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, and the remainder didn't describe anything 'controversial' in the sense of the article, but was rather just a history of her stances and actions on gun control. I've moved that material to Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, where it is a useful addition. Wasted Time R 11:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked through your sandbox and its citations, but I saw only one mention of Hillary Clinton anywhere, in that a message from her was robo-called to voters before the referendum. It's standard operating practice before elections to have well-known political figures do those robo calls; it doesn't mean they have a significant role. The controversy here seems to be that federal funds were used against the proposition and/or that Reno and the AG office were improperly involved; I see nothing that has to do with Hillary. You claim she engaged in "influence peddling" but term is properly used in connection with bids, contracts, legislation, etc. and not with elections. Wasted Time R 16:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page removal ↔ replaced with

Remove this article entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Proposition_B_in_Missouri/persons

To be replaced with this article entry:

1999 Proposition B in Missouri Participants

Thank you.

GrumpyAC 00:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it's best to use the "move" feature, then request speedy deletion of the old page I think. At least that's what I'm going to do. Equendil Talk 00:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Page moved, and deletion of the old one is pending. Equendil Talk 00:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for such a rapid response.

GrumpyAC 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M-1 Carbine Article

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)