I have referred your sockpuppet concerns about user:Everybodyswillyisaspeedboat to User:Ansh666 he has dealt with him before and was instrumental in having him blocked.-- RAF910 ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right but user:Jetwave Dave has been blocked since 2007, so it's pointless to pursue it any further.-- RAF910 ( talk) 02:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
As you surmised, the ten percent standard is intended to be interpreted as an order of magnitude, rather than a difference between a disqualified 9 percent and a qualified 11 percent. I am certainly open to alternative suggestions to clarify the criterion; but I disagree about the absence of sources to define an order of magnitude quantification.
The American gun culture includes a large number of writers who emphasize opinions rather than pursuing statistics. As the internet allows anyone to screen for information sources confirming an existing bias, such authors may be well represented by conventional search-engine algorithms. I personally enjoyed articles by Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor relating divergent first-hand experiences hunting with light or heavy bullets; but I sought out articles by Julian Hatcher to find results of side-by-side scientific method comparisons.
I believe sources are available to quantify the features qualifying as top importance articles. It may be difficult to find quantification in the popular press (including the anti-gun press); but well-researched sources are worth the effort required to find them.
Assessment of importance requires a fundamental understanding of the subject; and the amount of time required will vary inversely with the experience of the editor. I wouldn't encourage you to undertake this assessment task with an unrealistic impression of the knowledge or time required. As a practical matter, however, you may understand the subject well enough to know the answer after reading the article. If you think the subject represented more than ten percent of the firearms or ammunition, it's probably a top importance article; but it's probably not top importance if you have doubts. I doubt your decisions on that basis will be challenged; but it shouldn't be an unreasonable task to find documentation on the few which might be. Thewellman ( talk) 19:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to request assistance with Draft:Florida_Carry. Help Desk recommended that I contact someone from WikiProject Firearms Stogiec ( talk) 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
California law bans "Flash suppressors" on rifles as an "evil feature" that makes it a so-called "Assault Weapon". However, muzzle brakes are legal. See here for the first part [1] and here for part 2 "(b)“flash suppressor” means any device that reduces or conceals the visible light or flash created when a firearm is fired. This definition includes flash hiders, but does not include compensators and muzzle brakes (devices attached to or integral with the muzzle barrel to utilize propelling gasses for counter-recoil)." The source is here for the MB exemption. [2]-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a major contributor to the article and I just read your concerns.
Hotspur23 ( talk) 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Zackmann08 ( talk) 23:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heckler & Koch SL8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semi-automatic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Before going on a campaign to delete links which are arguably useful, it'd be better to raise the issue at the WP:External links noticeboard. There you can get a consensus of your peers. It may be the case that some of the links are worth keeping. Rezin ( talk) 17:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleting legitimate citations to scholarly works is destructive. It doesn't matter if the scholar has added them himself, so long as their relevant to the material. You're not even leaving explanations on the article talk pages. If you believe they're unreliable then please raise the matter at WP:RSN. Otherwise you're just being disruptive. Rezin ( talk) 23:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for letting me know what i did wrong in my recent edits. As you might or might not have seen,i'm still quite new to Wikipedia,but i'm learning from experiences like these.
I do have a question though,could you explain what you meant with "It might be a better contribution to make sure all of those images are properly categorized at the Commons, etc., which are linked from the WP articles."?
Again,thanks for letting me know,i'll pay more attention when making a gallery and adding in new pictures. As you might've seen,i was the one who updated all the Wikitables in the Lists of weapons page,and i updated most pages aswell (Altough i'm still working on that.)
I don't know if this is the proper way of responding,but i clicked on talk and it led me here,so i thought i'd go ahead and write it anyway.
Cheers! MatteoNL97 ( talk) 13:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear User:Rezin. Thank you for your wiki-thanks for my edits cleaning up the Henry Rifle page. Always pleased to be of help. Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 23:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Why the systematic removal of mentions of James Rawles and his books from so many WP pages? He is very strongly pro-2d Amendment, and surprisingly knowledgable about guns, for a novelist. TheSwitzerdude ( talk) 21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It occurred to me that Mike's Talk page, given his ban, is not the best place to have the discussion, so...
I have not forgotten, just letting ideas percolate a bit. I still plan to move forward with setting up pages for the GCTF. Regards, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow! The encroachment of political BS is getting more rampant. I'm trying to fend of infection in the Firearm article. Somebody is trying to insert stats on "firearm deaths". Anyway, do you think we should start setting up the GPTF in a Sandbox or just go straight to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms/Gun_Politics_Task_Force? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Couple things... 1) I've inquired about messaging all of the members of the project to get others to comment about the proposal. If its allowed, I'll message each of them to come to the Talk page, read the proposal, and hopefully comment. 2) In order to get more eyes/input/participation for the Task Force, I'm thinking about asking the Editor of the SignPost newsletter to run a story about it. Good/Bad idea or just too soon? What do you think? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
So the templating and setup seems pretty straightforward in my head at this point. I just need to pick a weekend and devote most of it to formatting and seriously complex things like "color choices" and "button style". But one thought I had in particular was to get three kinds of Users involved in the moderation of the GPTF. Basically a three person council made up of one active Firearm Project person (sooooooo NOT nominating myself or accepting it, if made), one active and interested Law Project person, and one active and interested Law Project person. That way if (who are kidding) when there are disputes, the three can discuss and decide and since its a odd amount there will usually be a tie-breaker. I'm also assuming that the three project aspects will be fairly represented so that information accuracy and neutral presentation will win out over POV and just plain BS.
So even though the GPTF's "home" will be under the umbrella of the GUNS Project, it will have input from the related projects. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a look at my work at Vista Outdoor Inc. Thanks. Singaporebobby ( talk) 13:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You tagged Palm Pistol as non-notable in October 2014. I've removed the tag because it looks notable enough to me. Feel free to AfD it if you still think it's not notable. Cheers, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Webley-Fosbery Automatic Revolver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Maltese Falcon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not think the info is on googlebooks. That source is an audiobook. Its on the CD, IIRC.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
On matters which I am not permitted to speak in connection with the Firearms Project: you have my proxy.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not have time to work on that one to bring it to GA, but I cleaned out the web sourcing and used de Quesada's book. Nothing too contentious in those edits anyway, however I purged som of the countries listed as they turned up nowhere in the sources i looked through.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it took forever, but interlibrary loan finally delivered a copy of THE BOOK OF THE GARAND, and I'll now try to check out what you asked for. Saintonge235 ( talk) 18:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:AK-47#Map_image as part of your participation in Talk:AK-47#Split_.22Users.22_to_.22List_of_AK-47_users.22. Kind regards 217.186.51.33 ( talk) 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC).
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I have referred your sockpuppet concerns about user:Everybodyswillyisaspeedboat to User:Ansh666 he has dealt with him before and was instrumental in having him blocked.-- RAF910 ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right but user:Jetwave Dave has been blocked since 2007, so it's pointless to pursue it any further.-- RAF910 ( talk) 02:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
As you surmised, the ten percent standard is intended to be interpreted as an order of magnitude, rather than a difference between a disqualified 9 percent and a qualified 11 percent. I am certainly open to alternative suggestions to clarify the criterion; but I disagree about the absence of sources to define an order of magnitude quantification.
The American gun culture includes a large number of writers who emphasize opinions rather than pursuing statistics. As the internet allows anyone to screen for information sources confirming an existing bias, such authors may be well represented by conventional search-engine algorithms. I personally enjoyed articles by Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor relating divergent first-hand experiences hunting with light or heavy bullets; but I sought out articles by Julian Hatcher to find results of side-by-side scientific method comparisons.
I believe sources are available to quantify the features qualifying as top importance articles. It may be difficult to find quantification in the popular press (including the anti-gun press); but well-researched sources are worth the effort required to find them.
Assessment of importance requires a fundamental understanding of the subject; and the amount of time required will vary inversely with the experience of the editor. I wouldn't encourage you to undertake this assessment task with an unrealistic impression of the knowledge or time required. As a practical matter, however, you may understand the subject well enough to know the answer after reading the article. If you think the subject represented more than ten percent of the firearms or ammunition, it's probably a top importance article; but it's probably not top importance if you have doubts. I doubt your decisions on that basis will be challenged; but it shouldn't be an unreasonable task to find documentation on the few which might be. Thewellman ( talk) 19:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to request assistance with Draft:Florida_Carry. Help Desk recommended that I contact someone from WikiProject Firearms Stogiec ( talk) 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
California law bans "Flash suppressors" on rifles as an "evil feature" that makes it a so-called "Assault Weapon". However, muzzle brakes are legal. See here for the first part [1] and here for part 2 "(b)“flash suppressor” means any device that reduces or conceals the visible light or flash created when a firearm is fired. This definition includes flash hiders, but does not include compensators and muzzle brakes (devices attached to or integral with the muzzle barrel to utilize propelling gasses for counter-recoil)." The source is here for the MB exemption. [2]-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a major contributor to the article and I just read your concerns.
Hotspur23 ( talk) 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Zackmann08 ( talk) 23:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heckler & Koch SL8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semi-automatic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Before going on a campaign to delete links which are arguably useful, it'd be better to raise the issue at the WP:External links noticeboard. There you can get a consensus of your peers. It may be the case that some of the links are worth keeping. Rezin ( talk) 17:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleting legitimate citations to scholarly works is destructive. It doesn't matter if the scholar has added them himself, so long as their relevant to the material. You're not even leaving explanations on the article talk pages. If you believe they're unreliable then please raise the matter at WP:RSN. Otherwise you're just being disruptive. Rezin ( talk) 23:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for letting me know what i did wrong in my recent edits. As you might or might not have seen,i'm still quite new to Wikipedia,but i'm learning from experiences like these.
I do have a question though,could you explain what you meant with "It might be a better contribution to make sure all of those images are properly categorized at the Commons, etc., which are linked from the WP articles."?
Again,thanks for letting me know,i'll pay more attention when making a gallery and adding in new pictures. As you might've seen,i was the one who updated all the Wikitables in the Lists of weapons page,and i updated most pages aswell (Altough i'm still working on that.)
I don't know if this is the proper way of responding,but i clicked on talk and it led me here,so i thought i'd go ahead and write it anyway.
Cheers! MatteoNL97 ( talk) 13:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear User:Rezin. Thank you for your wiki-thanks for my edits cleaning up the Henry Rifle page. Always pleased to be of help. Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 23:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Why the systematic removal of mentions of James Rawles and his books from so many WP pages? He is very strongly pro-2d Amendment, and surprisingly knowledgable about guns, for a novelist. TheSwitzerdude ( talk) 21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It occurred to me that Mike's Talk page, given his ban, is not the best place to have the discussion, so...
I have not forgotten, just letting ideas percolate a bit. I still plan to move forward with setting up pages for the GCTF. Regards, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow! The encroachment of political BS is getting more rampant. I'm trying to fend of infection in the Firearm article. Somebody is trying to insert stats on "firearm deaths". Anyway, do you think we should start setting up the GPTF in a Sandbox or just go straight to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms/Gun_Politics_Task_Force? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Couple things... 1) I've inquired about messaging all of the members of the project to get others to comment about the proposal. If its allowed, I'll message each of them to come to the Talk page, read the proposal, and hopefully comment. 2) In order to get more eyes/input/participation for the Task Force, I'm thinking about asking the Editor of the SignPost newsletter to run a story about it. Good/Bad idea or just too soon? What do you think? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
So the templating and setup seems pretty straightforward in my head at this point. I just need to pick a weekend and devote most of it to formatting and seriously complex things like "color choices" and "button style". But one thought I had in particular was to get three kinds of Users involved in the moderation of the GPTF. Basically a three person council made up of one active Firearm Project person (sooooooo NOT nominating myself or accepting it, if made), one active and interested Law Project person, and one active and interested Law Project person. That way if (who are kidding) when there are disputes, the three can discuss and decide and since its a odd amount there will usually be a tie-breaker. I'm also assuming that the three project aspects will be fairly represented so that information accuracy and neutral presentation will win out over POV and just plain BS.
So even though the GPTF's "home" will be under the umbrella of the GUNS Project, it will have input from the related projects. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a look at my work at Vista Outdoor Inc. Thanks. Singaporebobby ( talk) 13:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You tagged Palm Pistol as non-notable in October 2014. I've removed the tag because it looks notable enough to me. Feel free to AfD it if you still think it's not notable. Cheers, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Webley-Fosbery Automatic Revolver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Maltese Falcon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not think the info is on googlebooks. That source is an audiobook. Its on the CD, IIRC.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
On matters which I am not permitted to speak in connection with the Firearms Project: you have my proxy.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not have time to work on that one to bring it to GA, but I cleaned out the web sourcing and used de Quesada's book. Nothing too contentious in those edits anyway, however I purged som of the countries listed as they turned up nowhere in the sources i looked through.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it took forever, but interlibrary loan finally delivered a copy of THE BOOK OF THE GARAND, and I'll now try to check out what you asked for. Saintonge235 ( talk) 18:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:AK-47#Map_image as part of your participation in Talk:AK-47#Split_.22Users.22_to_.22List_of_AK-47_users.22. Kind regards 217.186.51.33 ( talk) 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC).
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)