User talk:Terrorist96

Missouri amended its law to allow riders 26 and older to go without a helmet.^[1] 150.250.5.19 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to update it soon.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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-1992 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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.

Doug Weller talk 15:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The map on the page needs to be adjusted to reflect the tax rates in Oregon and New Mexico.Needforspeed888 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Three years and three months ago (May 2019), you contacted me to let me know that the Area Code Map of California was incorrect. At that time, as I explained, I did not have my computer, and could not fix it. Conditions remained that way until August, when I got my computer back and was able to do map editing. Over the years, I made several changes, including using CSS to style the colors. So, if any of the - I think it's 12 - California Area Code Maps are changed, all it takes to highlight the area code on each specific map is to change two lines at the top of each file, instead of having to wade through hundreds of lines of description, or use a graphics editor and manually recolor each one. Cuts down the work needed to change thing even further. So, since you had an interest, I thought I'd tell you. Yesterday, I checked the California map of area codes here against NAMPA's master maps of California, and the one here matches theirs; currently, all the area codes are correct.

Given the disruption that an area code split causes, my prediction is that this will be the last new map needed for California. All further changes will be adding new overlay area codes as needed.

I just wanted to say, again, thank you for your assistance; if people who notice errors don't either fix the error, or, contact me that I may do so, especially since you didn't know how and might have made things worse. Also, if you notice they are wrong again, you are encouraged to contact me. Since you were interested, I thought I'd let you know, i.e. give you a heads up. No reply is required for this message; it was a courtesy update since you allowed me to fix what was wrong. Thanks.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could change the map to reflect the fact that Oregon and New Mexico have a rate above $2.00. Needforspeed888 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to teach you how to do it. Open it on Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cigarette_Tax_Per_State.svg) then click on the map to open the file. Then save the .svg file to your computer, open the file with a note editing program, such as Notepad on Windows. Next, take a look at the code and it's pretty easy to deduce how the states have their colors. You see:

.st0{fill:#800080;}

.st1{fill:#0000FF;}

.st2{fill:#FF0000;}

Ignore the rest, as it's used just for DC. These 6 string alphanumerics represent hex color codes. You can search each and see the color they represent. Instead of defining each state by their color, whoever made this map created several styles that map to the colors, then define the state as the style. So now you need to find id="OR" and id="NM". The next line is class. Those two classes should be changed from st1 to st0. Save the .svg file, then upload it on the Commons page. Very easy! Let me know if you run into any issues. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Needforspeed888 Before you upload, you could test by opening the newly edited .svg file within your web browser to confirm the changes are correct. Then once ready, upload to Commons with the Upload a new version of this file link under File history. Now that you've learned this, you can apply the same knowledge to other maps you would like to see updated. Every map is different, but just look at the code and recognize the patterns and you'll understand how it works. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that lesson! I'll give that a try at my convenience. Needforspeed888 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Terrorist96, if you have time, can you update this map please? Thanks, ―Darth Tomotron^{The Maw} 12:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have really fallen behind on that. Seems someone replaced my version with a new file (instead of just updating the prior one, which can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Second_Amendment_Sanctuary_counties.svg ). If you are interested, I can teach you how to update it. I would recommend updating mine since it has all the history, and incorporate the changes made from the standalone one (and remember to update the article to point to my version). See the above thread about the cigarette taxes in the US map. The same general instructions apply, except you need to apply the colors directly to the counties. For example, find the county you are looking for next to id= then find the line that says style="fill:#XXXXXX;... and replace the Xs with the color needed. Use 008000 for green (county level), 0000ff for blue (state level), and 990099 for purple (both). Let me know if anything is confusing! Terrorist96 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've sorted it out! Thank you, ―Darth Tomotron^{The Maw} 01:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Additionally, there are edit restrictions on Hunter Biden laptop controversy, including 1RR and consensus required. The edit notice that shows when editing the article states *You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) *Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. You have violated both of these restrictions. Please self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. I did not kneejerk revert. I edited the contents to address the objection raised in the previous revert, thus it is a good faith attempt to comport with the objection, not a "revert". If you have any other reason to object to the content, please raise it. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

A partial revert is still a revert, and reintroducing slightly modified material that has been challenged does not meet the bar of affirmative consensus. Please self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a partial revert which explicitly addresses the reason for the previous revert, thus not a blanket revert or edit warring, which is the spirit behind 1RR. Using your interpretation, one would be limited to editing the article just 1 time per 24 hours regardless of the content of the edit or the reason for challenging its inclusion. I stand by my edit and do not believe it violates 1RR. Note that I was not the person who made the original edit. My first edit was just to use different sources to address the initial objection to using Fox/NYP. Once the new objection was raised (misrepresenting the source), I changed it to align with the source, thus I have in effect only made one edit to the content of the article. If you still believe I have violated 1RR, feel free to take whatever action you see fit. I believe I am editing in good faith. Thank you for your concern. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist, you are violating both 1RR and Consensus Required on that page. Please reset the article text to its state before the violations. I believe that means back to my removal of your Jim Jordan stuff. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I already addressed the points above. Additionally, the user who removed the first edit by objecting to the sourcing used (Soibangla) has implicitly endorsed my edit by modifying it but keeping it generally intact. Your only objection was the source was being misrepresented, which was addressed. Do you have a new objection? Terrorist96 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's UNDUE. The content does not have consensus and the page restriction requires you to go to talk. It won't harm your efforts to share your views and seek consensus and there's no rush about updating the article with the latest tidbit of NOTNEWS. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's undue, why does the section regarding the topic exist? If it's undue then you should support removing any mention of the letter by the intelligence officials. Since the section regarding the topic exists, as it's clearly notable, it's not undue to provide an update related to that topic when covered by reliable sources. The consensus for exclusion was sourcing (fixed) and misrepresentation of the sourcing (fixed). Thus you cannot argue there is consensus against inclusion of the subject matter. Consensus for every single edit is not required. Consensus is required for challenged material. Here the material was not challenged, merely the sourcing and phrasing, both of which have been addressed. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO it appears you’ve also violated the 1RR provision (1, 2). Mr Ernie (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/south-dakota-new-law-expands-gun-rights-and-school-campus-carry/

This would make South Dakota into a Mandatory Campus Carry state, correct? OldDiddlyBop (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it appears so. Please feel free to update the article/map! Terrorist96 (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Just waiting on the update permissions. Already got an Updated Map primed. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)