Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:45, 12 November 2007

I am a member of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Misplaced Pages with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 00:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to contribute where I can. Arthurrh 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when you add to the To-do list for the project, please put a link around what you have added in your edit summary. It helps a lot.--LWF 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Arthurrh 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

440 Corbon

I was tagging articles as part of a drive. The original list had quite a few false positives and i have to admit i was sceptical about adding the tag to that article. In the end i added it as i believed it to be military. Checking its history i apologise and don't think it should have been tagged. I have very little knowledge about firearms and wouldn't be able to tell you about its use. Sorry for the inconvenience. Woodym555 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you have questions about obscure cartridges as part of your drive, feel free to poke me. I have a pretty good library. Arthurrh 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can i take you up on your offer? Do you know if the Marlin Model 336 has been used by a military or whether you think it should have a milhist tag. Much appreciation. Thanks Woodym555 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm better on cartridges than rifles, but as far as I know and from what I can tell, the 336 was never used by the military. It was introduced way too late for the military to be using a lever-action rifle, by at least 50 years. Arthurrh 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of the .45-70...

Do you, or does anyone you know, load paper patched bullets? I'm thinking that might be worth an article, but I don't have any good references handy, other than online stuff, and I think a book reference would be good to have to lend additional authority. scot 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't load black powder at all, but I did pick up this book on Sunday - Black Powder Handbook & Loading Manual, 2nd Edition; Book by Sam Fadala, Lyman Publications, 2001 UPC #011516971005. It seems to cover a lot of useful information. I'd be happy to collaborate with you and help reference some info if you need it. I don't know that I know enough yet to start an article about it on my own. Arthurrh 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done a tiny bit of BP cartridge loading; my first .45-70 loads for the T/C pistol were "as much Pyrodex would fit in the case with a drop tube (about 60-65 grains BP equivalent for modern solid head brass) topped off with whatever .458 cast bullet I could find"--I figured since the Trapdoor could handle bullets up to 500 grains loaded with a compressed load from a drop tube, anything I could do that way would have to be of equal or less pressure. They worked, and the slower, low pressure burn of the Pyrodex made them relatively pleasant to shoot compared to the smokeless loads I made up from the T/C load data handbook. On the other hand, muzzle brakes and smoky powder don't make you too popular at the range. The T/C Muzzle Tamer ports are located at about 10 and 2 o'clock; I could actually see the target after a shot (a first for BP shooting) but no one to either side of me could see anything downrange... However, that's the extent of my BP cartridge experience, so I have no firsthand knowledge of working with paper patched bullets, though I would some day like to try them out. scot 21:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. that's definitely not going to make you popular - muzzle break AND black powder! I have shot the .45/70 in a T/C, but it was a lot more kick than I get from the BFR. I've been avoiding loading BP for now, waiting until a day when I have more time to play. Arthurrh 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The T/C in .45-70 is pretty potent, even with the muzzle brake, a scope to add some mass, and the rubber backed T/C grips. The muzzle break cuts down on the muzzle climb, but it still pushes back with enough authority that it sheared the little trophy emblems off the adjustment caps on the Tasco scope that's mounted on it. And I always adjust the trigger to give me a whole lot more takeup when I put the .45-70 barrel on it, since you REALLY don't want the trigger to break until you're absolutely ready, and of course everyone on the range wants to try a shot. And on the topic of hand cannons, I've seen some reports on the web about the S&W firing doubles--apparently the movement under recoil is enough to pull the gun, and trigger, far enough back to reset, and when the gun rebounds, it's possible for the shooter to unintentionally pull the trigger again. Certainly sounds plausible, given that even with a muzzle break the T/C, with it's lower bore axis, generates 15 to 20 degrees of muzzle rise. And given that many people are going to be startled by the level of recoil, even after being warned, a reflexive tightening of the grip is certainly understandable as well... I need to talk my dad out of the Ruger #3 he has in .45-70, or get an NEF in .45-70, so I can start playing with some seriously heavy bullet loads. I've always leaned to the "big and slow bullet" school, and a 500 grain bullet is already heavier than most 12 gauge slugs. Have to look up the rifling twist rate on the rifles and see just how heavy you could go and keep it stable... scot 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a lot of fun. It's been several years since I shot the .45-70 T/C, but I remember it with a lot of pain in my hand. I'd be interesting to shoot it side by side with the BFR with the same round and measure recoil in inches, etc. I imagine with your BP and brake it's a lot better than what I remember... I know what you mean about the trigger, I had two friends fire the T/C accidentally, and it scared the heck out of both of them... I've tried 500 grain bullets once in my guide gun, but it didn't like them, I haven't tried them yet in the BFR. I suspect it may work somewhat better, because with the Marlin you have to seat the 550 grainer so deep you lose a lot of powder space. The BFR has a long enough cylinder I can seat the bullet way out if necessary. Haven't checked the twist-rate on both of them yet. I believe the Marlin has a 1-20 and the BFR 1-14. I don't think the 1-20 will be adequate for 500's, but should be ok for 405 grains. But the faster twist in the BFR should do the trick. I believe standard Ruger's have the same 1-20, don't know about NEF. I think their new rifles have 1-20, but don't nkow about their old ones. Arthurrh 19:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The key to stability is the overall length of the bullet. The NEF appears to have a 1:20 twist in the .45-70, which according to the Greenhill formula (twist = 150 * Diameter^2 / Length) will handle a bullet up to 1.57 inches in length. If we assume a pure lead cylinder .458 in diameter and 1.57 inches long, that's 748 grains. Trim off a bit of diameter on the front so it rides the tops of the lands, and you should easily get a stable 700 grain bullet in a single shot action. On the other extreme, I've always wondered if a .45 caliber black powder sabot, maybe paper patched to bulk it up another hundredth of an inch in diameter, would work in a .45-70 case. That would let you use .40 caliber bullets for a better BC with lightweight loads. The 1:20 twist is about what most muzzleloaders designed for sabot loads are running these days, and they're getting pretty good performance from them; you can even get .40 caliber polymer tipped spire point, boattail bullets made for shooting from sabots. Granted, you're probably just going to end up with a mild .416 Rigby load, but I've always liked the thought of pushing a particular caliber to the extremes of its performance envelope, and that would certainly offer better maximum point blank range than any equal pressure .458 caliber load. scot 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PS--the BC of Hornady's 200 grain .40 muzzleloader bullet (made for a .45 caliber sabot) is .265, better than anything but the 500 grain .458 bullets. And at under half the mass, you'd expect to get about 40% more velocity (based on equal muzzle energy). scot 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PPS--there is a fair bit of info on loading the Savage 10ML-II muzzleloader with smokeless powder and sabots; the rule o' thumb is to keep it under 35kpsi and 2500 fps (see here). 35kpsi is a pretty hot .45-70 load; the Trapdoor loads are 17kpsi, "standard" (I assume lever guns) loads run 28kpsi, and the Ruger #1 and #3 run at 38kpsi. scot 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PPPS--and don't forget the "forager" loads for the .45-70; your very own 48 gauge revolver, with spreader choke. scot 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm a ways off from the muzzle loading thing. I may try the 500's again in my Marlin, but I suspect it's the action length screwing me up if it's not the twist rate. The bullet has to be WAY deep into the powder space to fit that action. But maybe I'll take another poke at it. Now the "forage" loads was something I hadn't thought about! And timely, since I was bemoaning the fact that I don't have one of those nifty BFR's that use .45 Colt and .410 Shotgun. Could be good medicine for snake country, although at 4.5 lbs empty, the BFR makes a heavy carry piece. Arthurrh 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ballistics data, with sources

Looking at your recent contributions (lots of infoboxes) I think you might find this of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fluzwup/Ballistics I started gathering that up about a year and a half back, with the intention of doing a ballistics infobox for various cartridges, and maybe also a set of comparison charts. See here for the discussion on my talk page. If you've got any interest in getting that started up again, I am willing to do some programming to spit out filled out infoboxes from the chart. scot 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... potentially interesting. Looks like a lot of work. Plus at some point I wonder if we're crossing fair use lines with this. I'm not sure, but it's something we should at least think about. I read (raced) through the related talk, now a couple of questions.

• what are the mechanics (IE edit the page directly, do the export/import mentioned in the talk, something else?

I'm not sure. Generating templates could be done offline, with a program that parses the database and spits out filled out templates. A 'bot could probably be written to insert those into the pages, or they could be inserted manually. In addition to adding ballistics templates to existing articles, we could (optionally) create article stubs with just the ballistics data, or group them into pages with titles like "Other .45-.46 caliber rifle cartridges".

• are we most interested in factory / commercial loads, handloads, don't care? Doing comparions between a handload in one caliber and a commercial load in another caliber is most likely going to be misleading.

It's going to have to be some of both, because there are some important wildcats out there that don't have factory loadings. EVERY load should be sourced, and I could probably fairly quickly add a field to tag each load as commercial or handloading data. In many cases handload data provides a much wider range of bullet weights and velocities, so it supplements the commercial data and provides a more complete picture of the cartridge's performance range.

• is pressure something you want to record where available? It helps understand the differences between load velocities to some degree. However most commercial ammo producers don't provide it. Some reloading references do provide it. But methods are unfortunately highly variable, as well as limits used in reloading references.

Right, I think the data coverage going to be too spotty to include at this point. Since everything is tagged with source information, anyone interested could always track it down. Another possibility would be to take some interesting calibes and create a big graphic, showing relative pressure data of a bunch of cartridges.

• what about barrel length - see previous.

Right now I'm dealing with that by splitting things out into rifle and pistol sections. Exceptional barrel lengths (say, over 10" in a pistol) might be worth a mention in the notes section. Other than that, a general disclaimer (actual results vary based upon many factors, including test firearm and barrel length) should be good to cover it. The beauty of using online data when available is that it's easy for a reader to go look it up.

• Have you looked at the book The Hunters Guide to Ballistics that has data for lots of commercial rounds? I think it's pretty comprehensive. And I believe there are other similar books available. But again, if we just peel data out of it, is that still fair use? Or should/can we scape the ammo manufacturers site?

Data cannot be copyrighted; it exists independent of the creative process. As long as we don't copy charts exactly (including exact wording and format), then it's not a copyright issue. On the other hand, I'd prefer to have multiple sources for every load if possible, and I think at least one commercial load and one handload for each would be best.

• Ammo manufacturer ballistic information is notoriously suspect. You can probably count on bullet weight, but velocity is highly suspect, especially without barrel length and pressure info. Even is often inaccurate. It seems like some ammo companies like to overstate the performance of their ammunition.

To some extent that's not an issue; we're not after "the truth", we're after verifiability. Also, inclusion of handloading data is going to serve to counteract this, as they should provide much more precise data along with the testing equipment used.

• I see there were some attempts to scrape data from reloading sites, where does that stand? Has anyone tried to scrape the new version of the Hodgdon web site? And of course, this also raises the fair use question.

I have scraped some data from powder makers' websites. And since I'm putting the data in my own format, copyright isn't an issue. If you can find clean columnar data, it's fairly easy to cut and paste the data into a good editor (I prefer vim, but then I'm a Unix geek) and create a quicky macro to pound it into submission.

• what is the criteria for inclusion in the list - what about wildcats, proprietary, improved, and obsolete cartridges?

At this point, I'd say anything we can get data on, ideally from more than one source. If data is available from only one source, then I'd question notability. On the other hand, as long as we're just gathering data, there's no reason to be restrictive, we can filter out the non-notable cartridges when we start adding data into articles.

perhaps on the fair use we need to not just use automated tools and rely heavily on only a few sources? But this does dramatically increase the difficulty of putting the data together. Also I do have a LOT of reference data if we decide to go forward on this, but it looks like a bunch of work to peel it out of books. Other thoughts? Is there a good way to get some others involved to discuss these and other issues related to it? Arthurrh 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was kicking this all around back before the firearms group was active, so the next step would probably be to run it up the flagpole over there, and maybe create a sub-page for discussion. In the meantime, if you have any data to add, feel free to grab a screen scrape of my database--import it into Excel or your favorite spreadsheet program as comma separated values (CSV), add your data, and save it back out as CSV and stick it back on my database page. scot 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Caliber chart

I felt the need to expand the chart a bit more with some of the wonderfully confusing calibers, like .38 and .45, where bullet diameters vary a lot. I also changed the column head to read "actual bullet diameter", since that I think is the important bit and avoids the lands/grooves issue. That may have made things too confusing, what do you think? scot 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone need to flesh it out, esp for handguns, and I ran out of time for that. I think it's ok now. I didn't really want it to be yet another comprehensive list for someone to maintain, but I think it's nicely representative of most of the basic calibers now. Arthurrh 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering though what the limiting factor should be; should it be actual bullet diameter? The only odd one there is the .38 Speical (at .357) vs. the .38-40 (at .400, at least in modern loadings). I currently have two .38 caliber rows for that. scot 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that like my splitting the 6.5 rows between .257 and what we like to call 6.5 is the same issue, I think we kind of have to do it that way. Arthurrh 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Award

On behalf of the Firearms WikiProject, I, Thernlund, hereby award

Arthurrh

the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Misplaced Pages.

I've noticed you plugging away at firearms articles. Good job. (You're actually the first person to receive this award that I know of.) —Thernlund 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Way cool. Thanks. Arthurrh 06:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GA pass for M1 Garand rifle

Congratulations - you have done a superb job, and I have now passed M1 Garand rifle as a Good Article and updated the various templates on the talk page. You may like to copy the following template: {{User Good Article|M1 Garand rifle}} and paste it to your user page or somewhere suitable. This will produce

This user helped promote M1 Garand rifle to good article status.

and add you to the category "Good Article contributors". Excellent work - well done! EyeSerene 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your guidance in how to create a good article was helpful and informative. I'm sure we'll apply the same to many other firearms articles. Arthurrh 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad to be of help ;) EyeSerene 11:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On your Copyedit of the Remington 700

You did a copyedit of the remington 700, where you rearranged what I wrote, but now it looks like there is only one model of the remington 700: the remington 700P. I merged 700P into 700, but there are many other versions available. I wanted to check with you before I undid those edits, because I believe it is confusing and incorrect now. I write this here because I don't know if you watch the Remington 700 talk page. --Boris Barowski 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, I tried to make it less confusing, but didn't really succeed. I just took another crack at it, check it again. It needs a lot of expansion in the consumer section, but I think it now makes sense, let me know what you think. FYI, I'm setup to automatically watch any page I edit, which includes the talk pages for those articles by default, so feel free to put comments there as needed. Glad to have another active editor on the project. Arthurrh 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoring article

Hi - at your request, I've restored the article and talk page on .41 Action Express. MastCell 15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Arthurrh 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Accurizing

I'm in the process of a total re-write of accurizing, after moving the old version to Wikibooks, and since you just evaluated it, I'd appreciate hearing any thoughts on what you'd like to see included in it. The only section of my "to-do" list that I haven't filled out yet is the section on barrel harmonics, and I think I might do a stub of a section on handloading (mainly pointing to the handloading article) as well. scot 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did the basic rating for the template, and put some comments on the talk page there. Arthurrh 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging Blowbacks

I took the liberty of replacing yourtags with a combined tag. It's cleaner. I'd comment, but I'm tied up with a revert war on the SIG SG 552 article. Feel free if you'd like to take a look. I'm going to sleep on it. Thanks for the merge tags, BTW, I think they should be together in one article as well.--Asams10 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know how to do that. Thanks. Arthurrh 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference help

I put in the first reference to the Shooting Times Guide to Accuracy stuff you sent me, and had to guess at some of the citation parameters based on data I got from the website. Could you provide me with any other info, like the editors, ISBN (if any) and check on the publisher? The reference is under the Crown section, and info on the citation template is at {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} depending on which you think is appropriate. scot 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a single special issue from Shooting Times. Let me give you what I have on it. Shooting Times. Accuracy Secrets (Special Edition). September 2007. UPC 09281 07783 http://www.shootingtimes.com. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) Sorry it's not better, but the Masthead doesn't say much. Arthurrh 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hello. I replied to your vandalism warning on my talk page but am replying here as well in case you don't see that. To see if the edit in question was vandalism you need to compare it to the previous version, not the one after. My edit was reverting one vandal edit but I missed an earlier piece of vandalism which the edit after mine took out. Your mistake is understandable, but please check more carefully before leaving vandal warnings. Thanks.--Michig 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't dive deep enough. Arthurrh 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Linkdirect

] Got it. Damndest thing, tho. A couple of days ago, I trued using this exact form, & it wouldn't hook up to the subhead... Now, it does. Go figure. Trekphiler 09:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You never know... I had problems with it once, but it turned out to me missing spaces or some silly thing like that. But this seems to do the job. Arthurrh 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A. Uberti, Srl.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of A. Uberti, Srl., and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Uberti. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move from Uberti. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. — madman bum and angel 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well now it's all screwed up and apparently can't be moved at all. Arthurrh 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can. I've flagged it for an administrator to handle. Don't worry about it.  :) — madman bum and angel 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

K. thanks. Arthurrh 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All fixed up; no problem. Just use the button next time.  :) — madman bum and angel 20:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, I forgot, it's pretty rare that I do moves. Arthurrh 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

references

I know you like to put the references in small print, but I think that makes it much harder to read than necessary. Also I think that in normal size, the size isn't too big, I don't mind the normal size even on larger lists of references and notes. Almost all articles on wikipedia, even FA's etc with many, many notes use the normal size. I like the normal size. Apparently most people like the normal size too. And I have no interest in fighting a childish edit war with you, so can we come to a consensus ? Thanks --Boris Barowski 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not a big deal. But there's lots of articles all over the place with big and lots with small. So doing a revert just to change an article like you did isn't really going to do anything. The style guidelines allow for both styles, and I expect they'll both persist. Personally I find the smaller list easier to deal with than the large type, but it has a lot to do with what monitor and resolution people choose. You can leave that article whatever way you want, as you say thaere is no reason to war over it. I'm still going to be using the {{reflist}} as I write articles because I happen to like it better. We could go with the guidelines, which is to use the small when there are more than 10 references, I think that's a pretty good compromise. Arthurrh 23:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Normal when <10 references, small when >10 references, I like that. so ok for me :) --Boris Barowski 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Arthurrh 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

great power

i was not vandalizing the great power page. i deleted a section that would cause great controvery. nobody likes lists of great powers/middle power/empires etc. its too controversial. i will continue to delete the article if it is put back. and i will report you if you continue to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.23 (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like others don't agree with you. Arthurrh 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

74.136.204.115 vandalism

Arthurrh, someone on my subnet is vandalizing Misplaced Pages. How can I prevent them from doing this further and therefore preserve my ability to edit pages in a constructive manner? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.204.115 (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you create an account and use that instead of just the IP address, then you shouldn't have any problems. Let me know if you have any questions. Arthurrh 17:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for repairing the vandalism to my user pages yesterday. Looking at the ip's history log I'm sorry to see you were targeted too. Background is there's someone who has a personal beef with a record producer called Robin Millar and I've been removing the irrelevant nonsense they've been putting up and now they've obviously decided to attack my page. Numbnuts like that ruin wikipedia. Yorkshiresky 10:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Glad to help. Arthurrh 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

6mm PPC efficiency

I can demonstrate the efficiency of the 6mm PPC from published reloading data, charting (muzzle energy / bullet weight / peak pressure), and it runs neck and neck with the 6mm BR and handily beats out the .243 Win, 6mm Rem, and .243 WSSM for all bullet weights, and works at the lowest pressure of all the cartridges listed. The 6mm PPC just edges out the 6mm BR in each bullet weight; the data I have gives the 6mm BR the top slot, only because there is no data for an 80 grain loading in 6mm PPC in my source . The question then is how can this be cited? I suppose I could make a chart from the data, with the most efficient load per cartridge/bullet weight combination and then cite the chart. Do you think that would pass muster? scot 17:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The 6PPC wins over large cases with the two light bullets shown by Accurate Powder, this is true. It loses over the 2 smaller cases with the same bullets. Accurate doesn't seem to show data for heavy bullets. I could work it out when I'm home. But the point is the efficiency isn't just case, it's powder and bullet weight as well. It's the combination that is effective. Both the 6x45 and 6x47 are more effiicient than the 6PPC with light bullets. The 6PPC is in turn more efficient than larger cases with the same light bullets. Case efficiency is in large portion a factor of case volume, bullet diameter, and bullet weight -- given an effective powder for that set of parameters. IE smaller case almost always wins, unless the bullets become too heavy for the given powder volume, then the large case wins. We could run a chart for the fun of it, but the claim about "most efficient" is definitely and demonstrably incorrect unless given a narrow set of parameters, like "most efficient commercial case for light bullets in 6mm" but even that's pushing it, based on how you define "commercial". Once you include proprietary and wildcat cartridges, even ones in fairly common use like the afore mentioned small cases, the statement falls apart. Once you move up in weight to the 95,100,105 grain bullets the statement falls apart. Arthurrh 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Uviller and Merkel quote

Hi Arthurrh, thanks for your attention to the Bear Arms article. I have a copy of the Uviller and Merkel book in my hand right now, and I see that your quote gives the wrong page number in the ref cite. More, I see that your quote seems to be from pages 178-189 and that the use of ellipses severely distorts the meaning of that passage. What U&M are addressing is the hypothesis of Carl Bogus about the relationship of a militia to security in a slave state. I am noting this here on your talk page to give you first crack at correcting the passage. Also, I am not sure that the critique of a theory about the use of militia (ie slave patrols) by a state to control slaves is a top level issue deserving attention in that top level article like Militia, considering that there are so few slave states left in the world. SaltyBoatr 23:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Perhaps you can be of assistance. What I was trying to point out, and I was struggling with the correct location in the article, was that while Uviller and Merkel definitively support the "right to bear arms" having a military connotation, they also believe that the 2nd ammendment supports an individual's rights, although they believe those rights are tied to the need for a person being ready to serve in the militia. Suggestions for wording, placement, etc. are heartily welcomed. Arthurrh 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about global militia, not the United States Second Amendment. Page 194 is important to their thesis of 'having military connotation'. I am not sure that "they believe that the 2nd amendment supports an individual's rights, or that those rights are tied to the need for a person being ready to serve in the militia". In any case I don't support using the global militia article for discussion about United States gun rights as that topic is well covered elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. The U&M book is a excellent, I suggest you read it, learn what they are saying and then make your edits. SaltyBoatr 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better suited to the 2nd amendment article, but my point is that the blind acceptance of U&M as being a fully militia understanding is incorrect. And there are some serious problems with the U&M research as well esp as it relates to interpretation of the 2nd amend, but that is a separate issue. I put the info in bear arms because it seems inextricably caught-up in the US connotation for bear arms, which may or may not be the same as that of others. At any rate, I'll try and come up with a better wording/placement to make what I'm trying to say fit. I've removed it for now and I'll work on it. Arthurrh 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In spite of this, Uviller and Merkel do not believe that the right to bear arms is a states right, but rather an individual right. "e cannot join . . .in the contention that the constitutional right to arms belongs to the states rather than to natural persons. . . . This reading is, we think, misguided."

Arthurrh, without asserting that U&M are correct in their opinion (it is, after all, just one opinion among many), there are other passages from their book you may find relevant:

"From the text as well as a fair understanding of the contemporary ethic regarding arms and liberty, it seems to us overwhelmingly evident that the principal purpose of the Amendment was to secure a personal, individual entitlement to the possession and use of arms."

U&M are really quite explicit in saying repeatedly that they consider the second amendment to protect an individual right. They then go on, however, to claim that the individual right is linked to militia service, and since the militia is inoperable, the individual right is as well. If there are any instances on Misplaced Pages of U&M being cited in a way that implies they don't believe in an individual right, those instances should be corrected. - Hoplon 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoplon, could you cite exact page numbers so I can read these U&M passages? SaltyBoatr 14:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you requesting passages where U&M say they agree that the 2A protects an individual right, then pages 23, 40, and 166 are as good as any.- Hoplon 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Page 23 is qualified to Militia, see also page 24. Page 40 is also qualified as "...serve the interests of the commonwealth." Page 166 is also qualified saying: "It (the 2A) does not speak to individual liberty...." SaltyBoatr 20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, from your comment below (of 20:17), I see that you and I basically agree that U&M do not fit cleanly into either the "individualist" or "collectivist" category. That is, in fact, the very reason that U&M have gotten the academic attention they have; they took the same source material as other scholars and came up with a novel interpretation. I read U&M to hold that the 2A protects an individual right that had a communal purpose, that the communal purpose is no longer relevant, and that therefore the individual right is no longer relevant. If you don't agree that this roughly aligns with your reading of U&M, let me know. I think that you and I would agree that U&M do not, for a moment, hold that the 2A protects a "state's right" to arms. So, where is there disagreement left? In how to phrase U&M's linkage between the individual right and the communal purpose? Do you feel that the sentence below fairly represents U&M's linkage? - Hoplon 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"The personal right to possess arms constitutionalized in the Second Amendment must be understood in the context in which it was written, as a grant to the individual constituents of a communal military organization the means of making the militia effective."

The Militia is not defunct and exists so long as the people and their right to keep and bear arms is concerned. One cannot claim a right is an individual right and then assert it's a collective right at the same time. Said rights are mutually exclusive. The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not collective or State's rights. Arguments against the individual right view really require a profound change in the basic principles of logic as well as willful ignorance of history and the historical context of the 2nd ammendment.--Asams10 10:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

U&M's hypothesis is that the second amendment protected an individual right (to bear arms) that had a communal purpose (to serve in the militia), that there is no longer a functioning militia, and that since the militia has vanished, so to has the individual right. This hypothesis is, of course, debated by other scholars. Since our articles, for some reason, appear to be heavily sourced by quotes from U&M, we should at least understand what U&M are saying. - Hoplon 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, U&M can be described as not supporting a pure individual right and not supporting a pure collective right. They support what I think might be called a 'limited individual right', which is pretty close to what is also called a 'modified collective right'. SaltyBoatr 20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point in the first place. I think U&M are being heavily used to promote an idea that the 2nd amendment does not support individual rights, and this conflicts with their own statements. Arthurrh 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If so, then we should correct our usage. U&M fall into a middle ground between individual right and collective right interpretations. They believe in an individual right, but also believe that the "right of citizens to bear and to keep the arms necessary to the life of such a militia has atrophied; it has simply lost any relevant application in today's world." Professor Mark Graber from University of Maryland made an analogy to U&M along these lines; California has a right to have two senators represent them in Congress, but the right would be irrelevant if the entire state fell into the ocean. - Hoplon 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, again, that argument is from a false premise. It's a logical fallacy. Your're saying that A=B but you're also saying that A does not equal A. That argument proposes that the logical map for the 2nd ammendment is this: The militia is required, the militia is not the people, militia has a right to keep and bear arms. Far from it, it's clearly this: The militia is required, people have the right to keep and bear arms, therefore the militia is the armed populace. One cannot debate with somebody who won't accept the basic logic of the language. You cannot change the meaning of words like people and militia and expect to have your arguments taken seriously. The debate is and always has been focused on the phrase well regulated. Debate that or go home. I'll engage you in a debate on the meaning of that phrase but DON'T insult my intelligence by suggesting that the militia is not the people. Period documents CLEARLY make the case that the militia is the people.--Asams10 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Asams10, I'm not sure if you are trying to debate me or U&M. All I am trying to do is represent what U&M write in their book. I never wrote that I personally agreed with their hypothesis; it is their hypothesis, not mine. If you think I have incorrectly summarized I&M's position, let me know. But I won't defend whether that position is correct or not; it is their point-of-view, not mine. - Hoplon 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument is what I'm debating, of course. I realize it's not your argument. Perhaps I should have used the word one not you because that is what I meant.--Asams10 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthurrh‎, sorry, it wasn't my intent to bring this debate to your talk page. - Hoplon 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The discussion was overdue and needed to happen somewhere and I unwittingly was the instigator, so feel free to continue. I'll add as I see appropriate. I can always archive it when we're done. Arthurrh 23:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, have we worked it out, or is there still disagreement? I'm not certain what everybody's position is here. - Hoplon 00:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

To this U&M hypothesis, on page 144, "For reasons of efficiency and public safety, it is implausible that any member of Congress or official in the Department of Defense, army, or state adjutant general's office should advocate a return to the policy of keeping the arms used by the organized militia in the Guard member's homes. Most fundamentally of all, the arms once purchased by the militiamen themselves are now government property and require the safekeeping accorded any other government property - and especially dangerous property at that. In the year 2002, the militia world contemplated by the Second Amendment no longer exists, and no plausible analogy to that nexus can be reconstructed." And from page 109, "when the purpose of a constitutional right is expressed directly in the Constitution, as is the purpose of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, there may come a point in the evolution of the social predicate where the original edict can no longer be applied without unacceptable divergence from the contemplated purpose. ...(The 2A) is meaningful, that it binds future generations to the extent that it can be applied according to the general purposes of its enactment."

In short, the 2A is not a time machine, and a Militia 'of the people' of 1786 doesn't exist today, therefore the 2A is largely obsolete, like the 3A. You likely disagree, but that is the U&M hypothesis. SaltyBoatr 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice anti-vandalism work

Well done with your recent anti-vandalism work, you're well on your way for a barnstar! Thebestkiano 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for reverting vandalism and making a cleanup edit on Larrys Creek on October 19. I appreciate your help keeping the article presentable while it was Today's Featured Article very much, Ruhrfisch _><>° 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Welcome

No problem, i'm here to help.Catherine the Great does not deserve her title 19:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Dear Sir. Today I deleted the wikilink to firearms from the "Aerodynamics" article, which apparently you had added earlier. I do not see what that article has to do with firearms. At most, it could refer to the aerodynamic force on a bullet in flight, but at present that subject is not discussed at all in the article. And even that has nothing to do with "firearms" as such. I hope you can agree with my action. Thanks. Raymondwinn 00:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it, it's the Talk:Aerodynamics article you mean. Actually I think it is relevant to firearms overall, but we could ask at the firearms project talk page if you want. Arthurrh 01:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm back, and begging your forgiveness for two blatant errors. First, the firearms tag indeed was on the "talk" page, not the article itself. Second, I posted my note to your user page instead of your talk page. Please forgive me; I am still getting up to speed on this Misplaced Pages thing. Anyway, thanks for your consideration of this topic.Raymondwinn 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it all got straightened out. Arthurrh 17:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

PROD

Just so you know, if a PROD tag is removed, you aren't supposed to restore it, even if it is removed in bad faith. This is explained here. Anyhow, I've started an AfD discussion about this non-notable school, and see you've already commented. - Rjd0060 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, I actually saw that after I restored it, I was reading it quick and mistakenly thought it was the same as the speedy tag. Arthur 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've also changed the warnings you left on that users' page to better reflect his inappropriate actions. - Rjd0060 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What the heck are you doing???

I believe that i have more than established the notability of this model. It is in no way a speedy deletion and I would appreciate it if you were to withdraw your nomination. --PMDrive1061 06:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:NOTE "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Your article has no sources or third party citations whatsoever. Arthur 06:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't even been given a chance to add the external links! The text by itself established notability of the subject. I'd written it on another wiki and I had just transfered it here. I am more than aware of what constitutes a speedy deletion and I used to be an administrator. I continue to tag inappropriate new pages as true speedy deletions. I would greatly appreciate it if you would restore the article and give me a chance to finish it. For the record, I wrote a LOT of similar articles under my previous username. See E-flite P-47D Thunderbolt 400 and ParkZone J-3 Cub as just two other examples. --PMDrive1061 06:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in the article that satisfied notability requirements per WP:NOTE and apparently neither did the admin who deleted it, fact they additionally tagged it as a blatant advertisement, which I would also agree with. At any rate, it's not up to me to restore it, you'll have to take it up with the admin who deleted it, or recreate it WITH the inclusion of proper references and notability criteria. From what I can tell your other two articles you mentioned are also probably good candidates for deletion as they don't appear to have references that qualify as reliable sources. Arthur 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I give up. If this is what Misplaced Pages has come to, I want no further part of it. Notability of all the examples I gave has been more than established and unquestioned up until now. --PMDrive1061 07:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines seem pretty clear at WP:NOTE. To be notable a topic has to have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. In addition the guidelines state "announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources". Reliable sources are fully described as well, and the ones you used on the other two articles don't seem to meet the appropriate criteria. If you have third-party sources that help establish notability, I'd be happy to assist in any way I can. But as it stands I have serious concerns about these articles. Arthur 07:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was doing before it was deleted. I left word with the admin and on the noticeboard, but no answer. I'd prefer not to get into an edit war over this. I am so steamed that I can't begin to tell you, but I want no trouble. Now that it's done, let's do it right. --PMDrive1061 07:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll hold off on the other articles for now to give you time to bring them up to snuff on notability. Just a reminder that according to WP:VER "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." Arthur 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm listing the deleted article at the review deletion page and I'll double-check the other pages in question. --PMDrive1061 07:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

citation requests as tools of censorship

Perhaps you did not intend your request as anything other than a request. However, at Joseph Smith, Jr. - and in many other articles touching on aspects of Mormonism - citation requests are routinely used in attempts to eliminate material that is certainly true; known by the requestor to be true; but felt to be non-faith-enhancing; that is, statements critical of Mormonism, or any statement that would not be endorsed by Church officials, are met with citation requests, then eliminated, while other statements, even those known to be false, are not met with citation requests and are permitted to stand. Citation requests are being used as a method of ensuring bias. Just prior to your request, a user eliminated all mention of Masonry from Smith's article, despite the fact that the lack of emphasis (let alone mention) has been noted repeatedly in the article's talk page and archived talk pages as an indication of bias in the article. Similar attempts were made to throw hurdles in the way of those including Mormon sacred words, such as "Pay lay ale" (clearly known to be accurate, and again followed up by disingenuous questioning of provided sources), or to include mention of endowments for Hitler, form part of a long pattern of abuse and attempts to exclude all viewpoints other than the official Mormon line. - Juden 06:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the foregoing, the policy of Misplaced Pages is to assume good faith of other editors; something obviously lacking in Juden's interaction with all editors he deems to be LDS. I encourage you to continue to ignore this editor and his rather unending accusations. When you see a fact that needs a reference, please continue to request a reference. Better yet, see if you can find a reference for the statement particularly if you know that you can find it quickly. Please continue to assist in improving articles of Misplaced Pages. Cheers. --Storm Rider 09:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We start by assuming good faith. Once editors have demonstrated bad faith (for example, by systematically censoring opinions, or by placing personal insults about other editors on talk pages), they may quite correctly be called on it. - Juden 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper speedy delete tagging: HobbyZone Millennium PTU

Hi Arthurrh. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author. See Patrolling new pages. You requested speedy deletion (CSD A7) using TW of the article HobbyZone Millennium PTU one minute after it was created. This lead to this mixed DRV and seems to have contributed in the creator retiring. The article did not met CSD A7 (it met CSD G11) and the one minute from creation tagging was improper. From the above thread, it appears that you are tagging article for speedy deletion for not meeting WP:NOTE. There is no WP:NOTE speedy delete criteria. Please put at least a five minute buffer (or whatever WP:NPP uses) between your TW new page patrol and the new pages. Also, please review the WP:SPEEDY criteria. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Arthurrh.

Being a recent graduate of Akins High School, I believe I have the greater knowledge of the these topics, and I know for a fact all of this is true (particularly the football team losing and the school performing abysmally on standardized testing). Not only that, but all 'opinions' expressed are felt by the majority of students still attending or also recently graduated from that school, at which point I believe it is worthy of mention. Since I'll probably never convince you, go ahead and ban me or whatever, because I have no problem spending 15 seconds to click 'undo' now and again.

I'm just that committed.

I've left a comment on your talk-page, because I'm not sure if you're watching this page. But basically, "knowing something for a fact" isn't proper sourcing on wikipedia, you can read about that at WP:OR. You need to make sure you have a reliable source as defined in WP:RS. If you need help on that, let me know. Arthur 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I find I need no help; I've been able to make my edits relatively unhindered so far. By the way, I know it's not your personal policy, but if Original Research is not viable as a resource, then by definition all information in Misplaced Pages is second-hand, word-of-mouth. Hardly makes for a reliabe resource, one that I wouldn't spend time policing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawdad22 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, feel free to do as you choose. Sometimes people have problems with wiki policies because they don't know how to follow them. WP:OR certainly isn't my policy, but it is wiki policy and is explained there. Of course feel free to go to the talk page for that article and comment on it, that's what wiki is all about. Arthur 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rating deferred articles

I was just looking around, and I looked at the list of rating deferred articles for the Firearms Project, and I noticed a number of articles that you had tagged on the list. Many of these are firearms that on the surface appear to be the exact type we should rate. Did you have a particular reason for marking those as deferred, or was that a mistake, or something of that nature?--LWF 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally I tag something that is flagrantly military that is in WPMILHIST and seem to have little or no civilian use as deferred. It's possible I've listed a few accidentally, but that's my basic guideline. They're already rating such articles, so I thought that was the point of deferred, to not duplicate effort where possible. Arthur 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd personally always seen it as something more for bios. We should probably bring this up at the project and get a consensus to avoid any confusion on the subject.--LWF 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The example at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#New_class_value_for_project_banner certainly uses a WPBIO as an example, but the use doesn't seem to be limited to that based on the comments there. Certainly we could ask for further comments from others since that topic already exists. Arthur 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for fixing that cat in the discussion, I'd tried to find out how to do that before, but never was able to find out how to wikilink a cat. Thanks again.--LWF 02:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NP. Someone pointed it out to me on one of my pages. Arthur 02:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag

I am afraid that you did not read carefully what the tag says. It specifically covers the cases with potential of shamelss promotion or other conflict of interest: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content. "Real" things from physical world do not fall into this category. `'Míkka 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am repeating again: please do not apply the tag to articles that do not fall under the description given in the tag. `'Míkka 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This sould not be read as a disrespect to your goal to keep garbage off wikipedia. I am doing similar things myself. `'Míkka 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood, however my understanding of WP:NOTE differs from yours. Not to mention WP:VER and WP:RS. The fact that an items exists doesn't mean it automatically gets included in an encyclopedia. Unsourced information should be removed according to policy. I'd be less concerned if it was properly sourced. Probably all these little "specialty" shotgun cartridges should be put into one good article like Specialty shotgun cartridges rather than a plethora of unsourced stubs. Arthur 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:VER and WP:RS are uncontestable. Any article without refs and tagged so for some reasonable time (to give people some slack) is fair game for deletion. `'Míkka 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rigiht, so I wondered why you removed the unreferenced tag from Bolo shell, R.I.P. cartridge, Flaming ball round Arthur 20:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are probably relatively new to wikipedia and don't know the evolution of the "notability" thing. It was introduced to combat shameless promotion. Let us see how it is applied to ammo. If it is a trademark, then the "notability" criterion is applied. If it is a type of ammo, then the primary concern is "verifiability": whether this term is really in use in the industry. `'Míkka 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I se you are not a freshman, but you were less active in "2004s" `'Míkka 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you are nominating an article for deletion, your vote is counted as "delete" (unless you specifically say otherwise) so you don't have to write the word "delete" somewhere else. You may later introduce your additional thoughts either directly into your nomination or as a bulleted "Comment", or as a contesting reply to someone's vote. `'Míkka 20:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal talk page

Hi. Thought that you may be interested in this. Cheers TigerShark 20:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the vandal watch on my talk page. Arthur 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I saw The JPS's old friend out and about again, and kept an eye on his contribs, and he hit you for reverting him so I reverted back. Don't worry though. He'll be back, in about 2 minutes... wonderful </sarcasm> Gscshoyru 01:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST

According to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military History#Scope, weapons etc. are included in the project. Regards, Neranei (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I just read the scope section, and I don't see where it mentions non-military firearms cartridges. I see military weapons, but the .50 Action Express is neither a weapon nor military. Feel free to tag it if you want, but I'm just wanted to point out that it may not be relevant in case you were unaware that it's never been used or proposed for any military purpose as far as I'm aware. Arthur 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of that, and now noticing your RfA comment where you said that it had been tagged/untagged 2 times, I see what you're saying. I didn't realize that non-military weapons and such didn't fit into the scope, and I'm sorry for your trouble and misunderstanding. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. Regards, Neranei (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. The blur between non-military and military items is difficult to assess often, especially when it comes to particular firearms, even more so with particular cartridges. When in doubt, there are a lot of people in the firearms project who can help, feel free to ask. My particular strength is around cartridges, so don't hesitate to poke me if you have a need. Arthur 17:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your help, and I will most definitely poke you if I'm having trouble. If you see me mis-tag a firearm or anything, please tell me. Thanks also for your comments on my RfA, they are greatly appreciated. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Frank Lasee. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting unsourced edits that violate WP:BLP made by a sockpuppet. This does not violate as noted in the exceptions clause of that policy: "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons" Arthur 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

7.62 x 51 NATO article reversion

howdy

I think the anonymous editor you reverted is doing it deliberately -- I reverted the same edits about a month ago. See more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/70.181.105.130

izaakb ~talk ~contribs 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's possible. I assume it's because he/she thinks that they are correct and are fixing an error. Probably the best recourse is to do as you have done and try and educate them on their talk page. Arthur 19:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: SpySheriff reverts

Hi Arthur! I've got a complaint regarding SpySheriff the so called "accusations" Now I'd like to show some links, you can't say their 100 % reliable, which it should but the ip's are on the server.

Links: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/64.28.183.99/postid?p=512494 McAfee Has not given any rating at all, but the comments say something else, I have not in any way contact with the reviewers.

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.spysheriff.com Now, netcraft is a service you should trust at that, they know what they're doing.

http://www.domaintools.com/reverse-ip/?hostname=64.28.183.99 Saying that SpySheriff and spy-sheriff are on the server.

Check this ip 64.28.183.99 on http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp http://www.ip-adress.com/ and http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm

http://www.ipaddresslocation.org/ip-address-location.php?ip=64.28.183.99

Now those are just "Ip locating" software, and 1 link showing to McAfee siteadvisor ratings and Netcraft. So what more do you want?

--Kanonkas 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)