User talk:Sipos111

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's

Regarding your posts to User 7&6-thirteen's talk page, (and your edits in general), you are correct in that articles about sporting goods companies should not just be "corporate propaganda". Another thing they are not however, nor is Wikipedia in general, is a

"Articles about notable corporations are about just that, the corporation." How is it not relevant that a corporation's products were used in a nationally newsworthy massmurder? Let's not pretend that I have more of an agenda than the user who edited me. https://lightbreather.com/wikipedia-pro-gun-eds-niteshift36-and-springee-c2accb697911

And re: that "sporting goods company," how is the reason for their rebranding not worthy of being mentioned, if their rebranding is being mentioned.

-Sipos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipos111 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is something you should be bringing up on the talk page of the company's article. Not debating over edit-warring edit summaries and multiple user talk pages. -

^theWOLFchild 21:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe I should ALSO be putting these comments in those places, but here I was directly responding to your comments. FWIW, I find your characterization of my edits to be interesting. One man's "anti-gun crusade" is another's reasonable inclusion of relevant facts. Sipos111 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See comments below. -

^theWOLFchild 23:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

{posted to my (thewolfchild's) talk page for some reaon): This user claimed I was disruptive for wanting to include information about the use of a corporation's products on that corporations pages, and for wanting to explain why a coporation rebranded itself. Language used was non-inflamatory. Facts were provided and cited. I am not a wikipedia insider, so forgive me if I don't follow all of the conventions here. Take care!

-sipos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipos111 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's clearly posted on my talk page that if I have posted a comment on your talk page, then reply on your talk page, not mine. Surely you saw that(?) so, how about you respect it? I know you're new here, but you will find that most, if not all, editors here prefer to keep discussions to one page, instead of spreading them out across multiple pages.

Now, with that said, I claimed you were being disruptive because you were. You posted content that was reverted. Per

^theWOLFchild 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Mea culpa. Meanwhile kids are dying and users are exploiting wikipedia's systems to prevent those deaths from being associated with a major cause of those deaths. Sadly, I truly don't have time to learn my way around. Sipos111 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe I should ALSO be putting these comments in those places, but here I was directly responding to your comments."

You were "directly responding to [my] comments"... by posting on a completely different page. Got it.

"FWIW, I find your characterization of my edits to be interesting. One man's "anti-gun crusade" is another's reasonable inclusion of relevant facts."

FWIW, I find your characterization of "reasonable inclusion of relevant facts" interesting.

"Meanwhile kids are dying and users are exploiting wikipedia's systems to prevent those deaths from being associated with a major cause of those deaths."

Oh my gawwwwd... did you really just trot out the "dying kids" card? (and you don't consider this a crusade?). Show me one kid, just one, why "died" because you couldn't post your anti-gun rant on a Wikipedia page. First, how can possibly, even remotely, show any connection between the two? Second, you can't, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

"Sadly, I truly don't have time to learn my way around."

Then it's probably for the best you move on. You seem to be able to post whatever you please over at 'lightbreather', (without worrying about, you know... editing guidelines, balance, neutrality... all that 'guff'), so why don't you take your

^theWOLFchild 23:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• User: Thewolfchild, lay off this. "The dying kids card"--I can play that too, if that's what you want to call it, but I can make it sound more neutral and I have an administrator's button. You best lay off the personal attacks; if you want to make fun of someone else's grief, do it on your MySpace or whatever you not-kids-anymore people have. Please do not think that I am joking. I got kids, you understand? Drmies (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well Drmies, that's the point; I don't think anyone should be invoking the death of children here for any reason. I didn't pick up on any "grief" in Sipos111's comments, but if I had, I certainly wouldn't "make fun" of it. While my comments were somewhat sarcastic, and intentionally so, I don't believe they constitute "personal attacks". I'm aware you're an admin, but I don't think admin action is warranted here. And lastly, I absolutely believe that you are not joking. And neither was I. I fully understand parenthood and all it entails. Cheers -

^theWOLFchild 02:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• User: Thewolfchild, I didn't set a very good example of how to behave, did I. I apologize for my tone and for the suggestion that you're not mature enough to be here, or whatever I meant in my anger. I hope you understand that I got (too) fired up from an AGF point of view--that this editor shouldn't be mocked because of that "dying kids" comment, which we should all take seriously (and I know you do too). Sipos, none of that takes away from the fact that your edits were seriously problematic, of course, and I hope you take the various comments (on ANI, and below by 72bikers) to heart. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sipos111_for_WP:NOTHERE_and_WP:OUTING_myself_and_Niteshift36 Springee (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sipos, if you really want to get anything done here, leave your guns at the door, learn the conventions, and play by the rules. If you don't, you will just be blocked indefinitely. That may make you feel good and all righteous for a moment, but it won't make a damn bit of difference. Drmies (talk) 00:48,

17 February 2018 (UTC)

I would only add by saying take heed of what was said here, and to join the talk page conversation here Douglas High School shooting.-72bikers (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, 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.

—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]