User talk:AliveFreeHappy/Archive 2

October-December 2007

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 [1]. 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[2]. 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 Wikipedia. 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. "[W]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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 [1] certainly true; [2] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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/wiki/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)

Well if you're saying you're doing your own research on their IP addresses, then that unfortunately falls under WP:OR and wouldn't be allowable. What we need is to find some reliable source that says basically the same thing. It might be difficult, but given the apparent nature of SpySheriff, it's possible that someone has written about it. Arthur 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what, this is a pretty weird situation. Shall we see what others say about using such things at the reliable sources noticeboard? Arthur 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted it at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IP address lookups, please feel free to comment there. Arthur 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize, I didn't mean to be uncivil. Regardless, please explain why you are seeking to put commentary in the 2A section and not the 3A section. Considering that the Black commentary has equal bearing on the 3A as on the 2A suggests that your focus on the 2A and not the 3A does have an appearance of a POV push. SaltyBoatr 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another edited the commentary. You removed it, marking it was poorly sourced per WP:OR, and asked for a better sourced. I provided it. That's all I was doing, answering a request (from you) for a proper source. Upon looking, you are correct, the exact same statement, esp Duncan v. Louisiana does apply to III as well. (plus I see I misspelled Louisiana, I'll go fix that.) Probably we could combine the two black statements into one and add to both, or something similar. Or a paragraph elsewhere in the article re Black, or example a sub-section of "Partial versus Total incorporation", or ... But to assume POV push and then to reiterate it here again, is definitely not WP:AGF. Assume good faith means we don't make statements like "it has the appearance of POV push", which is probably why it's considered to be incivil. Arthur 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, sorry. This is not a vacuum. This occurs in context of our 2A discussion about incorporation last week, interrupted to rest your fingers. I am doing very little assumption about your point of view about 2A incorporation, a POV which still remains unexplained, so I am waiting for the actual good faith. SaltyBoatr 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not my POV, it's one of several POV's. You contended earlier that the POV doesn't exist, yet here it is by Justice Black in a majority opinion. A plethora of sources have been provided. I don't know what further explanation is required. Re the new intro on the 2A article, I was hoping that someone other than you and I would look at our proposed intros and/or propose a new one. Doesn't seem like that is happening, but we can give it another day or two and if no one says anything, I guess it'll be up to us to try and work out a good, thorough, unbiased intro that incorporates the various 2A pov's, without presuming that any of them are the "true" or "correct" pov. Arthur 22:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the olive branch. You claim you don't know what to do? Do this please: 1) Explicitly itemize these "several POV's" which you claim to see and have actively defended. 2) It appears that one of these POV's is "The Second Amendment is presently incorporated to the States." Please provide credible secondary source verification of this POV. SaltyBoatr 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1) I think this is now done as part of the proposed intro on the 2a talk page. 2) see the list of sources on the 2a talk page, as well as the Black opinion above. Arthur 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

November

Hi. User talk:164.116.224.11 also vandalized Matt Hasselbeck. THX.Kskk2 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Handloading safety

Your comment on the .22 CB talk page about warnings and handloading make me think that the handloading article might benefit from a similar solution--what do you think about a separate section that states the dangers inherent in the process? That would let us pull some "should" statements out of the text (not sure how many, but I'm sure there are at least a few) and also allow for a bit more safety info. Certainly there's both precedent and sources for that, as most reloading books have a section dedicated to safety. scot —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that something needs to be done to make the advice-seeming info more encyclopedic. If you think you can write it up like you did on .22 CB, then sure, take a crack at it. You might want to check back a few revs like a week or two ago, much of the "should" info has already been removed. Arthur 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I'm inclined to start from scratch with a good reference or two and work from there. Looking at the outline, I think the safety info would do well as a subsection of "Reloading process" (which should probably be renamed "Loading process" to genericize it). scot 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another one is the 4th paragraph of .240 Apex#Overview Arthur 19:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam

Thank you...

...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.

Thank you again and, best regards,
Neranei
This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Firearms and Military History

Hi Arthur -- I noticed that you cleaned up the military history template from another article that I mistagged. I appreciate your taking care of that. Do you have any tips for a layperson to distinguish military and non-military firearms, so I can save you a bit of work, or is it better to just continue as I have been and let you check in on the incorrect ones? Thanks! -- -- Avocado (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you're not experienced it can be difficult. But basically, if there is military use of a cartridge we normally list it in the article, so if you don't see it there, it's probably best to ask first. If you're interested in the subject, I'd recommend getting a copy of "Cartridges of the World". Feel free to ask either via an articles talk page if in doubt, or ask me here. -- Arthur (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just ran across another. Does the Glock 26 have a military use? Thanks! Avocado (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any reference of military use, and since it's a compact, it is highly unlikely. They use full size handguns. Arthur (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the .338 Federal non-military as well? Thanks again fro your help! -- Avocado (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a new cartridge designed for big game hunting. Arthurrh (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You say "long lists of feeder patterns are not encyclopedic"

I hotly dispute your claim. One of the key points of many public school systems is that there are *specific* elementary schools which matriculate into *specific* secondary schools. The attributes are important parts of the public schools (IMO, more important than, say, lists of sports games victories)

The reason why Bellaire's is so long is simple; so many schools feed into Bellaire.

Do not remove such content unless there is a consensus to do so.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions on this at the WP:SCH project have had agreement that they should be removed. But you can feel free to take it up there and see if there is a general consensus on it. I've posted the question there to see what others have to say. Arthur (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of those discussions (this has been the first time that a feeder pattern list has been removed from a Houston school article), but the trend now seems to be converting to prose. If you want, I can convert to prose form :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen a few that were converted to prose and it seemed to work pretty well when done right. Arthurrh (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

too late, man

He's already indef blocked. I asked that he be blocked from editing his talk page 'cause, well he needs it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge other articles into "Concealed carry in the United States"

You have proposed merging several articles into Concealed carry in the United States. They are Shall-issue, No-issue, May-issue, Unrestricted (gun laws) , and Weapon possession. Looking at Template:Mergefrom-multiple, it says, "Please use the second parameters to direct to the same Talk page. Otherwise, two separate discussions could take place in each of the articles' Talk pages." In other words, the discussion of the merge proposal should take place on the Talk page of the main article, not separately on all the Talk pages. I have therefore merged all the discussions. I did this by (1) updating the "merge" templates in all the articles to direct the discussion to Talk:Concealed carry in the United States#Merge "issue" articles with this main Carry article, and by (2) moving any existing comments from the other articles' talk pages to that talk page. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater 13:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have missed that part. Arthurrh (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

APOLLO HIGH

DID U EVEN GO THERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.199.113 (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

apollo

did u even go to apollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.199.113 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-reference?

Reguarding this change; how about if the reference said "Refer to citations at .22-250 Remington"? That's not truly self-referential, but rather a form of shorthand. After all technically every wikilink is a self-reference, is it not? scot (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there is no problem using a wikilink to get more info. But according to WP:VER you can't use wikipedia as a reliable source. It doesn't say what to do in the case you mention, but when I have something that uses the same source, I just cut/paste it. After all, if you simply refer, the source you relied on may not even exist at some point in the future. I'd say if we need a particular source in an article, it's probably best to put it there. Arthurrh (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste is somewhat problematic, as the statement is backed up by the whole "History" section of .22-250, which has multiple references, hence why I personally have done the same thing with "See XXXX article" links in references (which is blurring the boundary between reference and footnote).

Also, the only place I see Wikipedia listed as "not a reliable source" is at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, which is NOT policy, and furthermore, no justification is given for why it isn't. I could make a fairly strong case that, while self published, it is a peer reviewed source and I can provide third party reviews saying that it is generally reliable. Maybe this just means we need to do a Good Article review on .22-250 and then we can cite it? That would seem to meet the "reliable source" criteria as I'm reading them. scot (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to take it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. It's a pretty generic issue that must affect others. I wonder if the "main article xxx" wouldn't handle this issue properly. Arthurrh (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like it's just the thing, though I don't know that I've ever seen it used in a footnote. Maybe it's time to start a trend... scot (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it's not forbidden, so do it. Arthurrh (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The template doesn't work right, unfortunately, see here. I think a ref tag with "See main article XXXX" is functionally equivalent, and won't suffer from formatting issues. scot (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, some of the tools that tell people when articles depend on them won't work that way. What about putting the "main article template" into the text itself? Arthurrh (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work well in text, since it has newlines before and after the line of text it inserts. What's probably needed for this is a new template, maybe a "cite mainarticle"? Not that I have the knowledge offhand to create a template, never done it before. scot (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gar! Oh well, find something that looks decent and give it a shot. And/Or we can bounce it around at RS noticeboard and see if anyone else has found a good way. Arthurrh (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Did you use the "move" tab to rename the page Whoops I'm an Indian to Whoops, I'm an Indian!? It doesn't look like it. If you don't do it that way you lose edit history, links, etc. Cut/paste and create a new article is not the way to rename an article. Arthurrh (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not need to. All contents were already copied and placed in the new entry (Whoops, I'm an Indian!), which I had done before I knew how to use the move tab. Please remind me - where is the "move" tab? (It is not needed for this entry, but will be needed for others). Thanx! oanabay04 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The tab is at the top of an article when you edit it. Sometimes if you didn't do it in the first place, it may be best to get help from an admin who can redo the move properly for you. If you don't know how to find an admin I can try and assist, I know a few. Arthurrh (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Great - that sounds good. I appreciate your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oanabay04 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've asked User:Neranei talk for assistance. Arthurrh (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Neranei seems to have undone what you did and then did a move, but I'm not certain if it's the punctuation you were looking for. If not, I'd suggest giving further clarification at User_talk:Neranei#Help_with_move. Arthurrh (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?!

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Frank Lasee wants more guns in public schools, as the article clearly indicates. Categorizing the man as such a legislator is helpful, informative and educational. Your reversion appears to be a childish attempt to save your favorite Wisconsin legislator from being outed as the moron he is. This is an encyclopedia, please keep your personal views and bias out of it. --NoMorePolitics 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply adding an obviously invalid category to a single account is unencyclopedic and probably vandalism. Based on your username, edit history, naming of the category, and goal, you're like just another sock-puppet. I could care less about Frank Lasee. If you want to attack him, wikipedia isn't the place. If you have valid sourced information to add about him, feel free to participate. Arthurrh 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Brock High School

Thanks for correcting my mistakes...I was actually correcting vandalism as well, but didn't notice that with the second revert (i.e. with the undo of a second vandalistic edit), I actually reinserted the first vandalism. With pretty embarassed greetings, --Mbimmler (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes when there is a sequence of changes it gets tricky. Arthurrh 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting!

I am glad that other people are looking at the Baton Rouge Magnet High article, even if it is just to add citation notices and the such. I'm a relatively new member of Wikipedia, and after I read the basic rules and such I have somewhat adopted the BRMHS topic, adding things here and there and reverting vandalism.

Thank you for helping me identify the citation and reference problem! Arachanox (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've taken a lot of school articles on my watchlist and I try to improve them. Arthurrh 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[3]] Jmegill (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Recent Mass Fairfax County Middle School AfDs

I just like to bring it to your attention that when Fairfax County Elementary schools were proposed for mass AfDs, the resulting discussion was a mix of Merge and Keep. Merge won, and all FCPS elementary schools are supposed to be listed in their own special article Fairfax County Elementary Schools. However, since the AfD, that article was redirected to Fairfax County Public Schools, against the decision of the AfD. Long story short, I propose that merging all FCPS middle schools into one meta page has precedent and should be done if the article cannot find enough independent articles to qualify on their own. Zidel333 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ckincaid77 Links

I think Ckincaid77's remaining links can be left in. Your opinion? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the relevant ones, like Human rights, International human rights law, etc. should be left in. The spread of tangential ones on other articles should probably be removed. At the moment, it looks like it's "clean". Arthurrh (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I did offer a way to consensus, please respond. Thanks. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Arthurrh. I believe you unintentionally sent me a message accusing me of vandalism. If you take a closer look at my edits, you'll see that I reverted vandalism made by others. John F. Street is the Mayor of Philadelpia. He did not portray Bozo the Clown. Thanks. 69.209.232.90 (talk) 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also got a message about vandalism "signed" by you on my talk page but it was placed there by 70.61.25.154. Please verify that this was not you. I, too, was reverting someone else's vandalism on Albright College. Thanks. Bashen (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these was done by me, if you look at the edit history, it was two different IP users. I always worked signed in. There must be a mechanism for reporting this behavior. Arthurrh (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much. I reported the two IP addresses so far. However, I think there will probably be more judging from similar vandalism that was going on with Albright College from other IP addresses. We'll wait and see. Bashen (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Foxcroft AfD

You state here that it's a single-paragraph stub over a year old. Up until September, it was significantly longer, though copyvio-ish.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that. Copyvio doesn't actually help content though, since it must be removed. It doesn't affect the idea of notability. It is frequently a reflection that editors aren't watching the article, or it would have been caught. But thanks anyway for the heads up. Arthurrh (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Webb Middle School

Sorry about the concurrent editing on the page x_x Joedaddy09 (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I don't think it messed anything up. Arthurrh (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

BES infobox

Butterfield Elementary School (Lake Elsinore, California) Sorry, didn't see your commments until after I moved it back. you were too fast for me. I came home, opened browser on a PC, (use mac at work) an saw the page flow didn't look right. Trying to get the first part to lineup to flow next to the infobox. Didn't know there was a specific format as it was not listed on the template page.I've reverted to your changes.DavidPickett (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a big deal. I just wasn't sure where you were headed. It looks ok to me as it stands now, but maybe you had something in mind? Arthurrh (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just didn't want a big blank space beside the info box as I see on my browser. BTW, What staff list did you remove, as I didn't have one on the page?DavidPickett (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You can always try to move the TOC around, but it gets troublesome since it's potentially a different layout on everyone's browser. One thing that usually helps is to write a more complete lead/intro and it will move the TOC down.The staff list was a list of previous principals [4] which is essentially the same thing, unless one or more of the principals is notable in their own right. Arthurrh (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

.408 Chey Tac “close range” projectile performance claim

Hi. Have a look at the “.408 Chey Tac “close range” projectile performance claim” section I wrote on the .408 Chey Tac article on the discussion page. The claim probably contains an explainable flaw.

Francis Flinch (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think you're correct that it's wrong - see comments on the talk page. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)