User talk:Asams10

Archiving old discussions:
 * Archive 1 available here. --Asams10 02:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Archive 2 available here. --Asams10 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive 3 available here. --Asams10 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive 4 available here. --Asams10 18:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive 5 available here. --Asams10 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Muzzle booster
You reverted my edits calling the information "dubious." The information I added is near common-knowledge among the NFA crowd. I own several suppressors and am 100% certain of the veracity of my statements. I am not aware of any information that I removed from that article - you said I "removed good information" but I actually ADDED a heading and filled it in. Please explain. EDIT: In fact, upon review of the reverted version, I removed literally NO information from the article. I am hesitant to believe you even read my contribution well. ConquerorPBN (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If I made a mistake, my bad. Your revision looked nothing like the original text.  Caught in the crossfire. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks can be deceiving - the big block of text that it looks like I deleted was simply moved into the new heading "Modern Applications" and I embellished it a bit. All the old info is there and I really didn't add much, just explained what the article already said.  If you don't object I am going to reinstate my edit, I feel it is clearer and better-organized than the original. ConquerorPBN (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

.45 ACP for M1911
While it is certainly true that the '06 was still under development in 1905 when Browning developed the .45 ACP, the .30-'03 had exactly the same dimentions in the area of the cartridge we're interested in, and in fact the very slight shorter '06 could even be fired in '03 weapons. Are you saying these dimentions in Browning's pistol cartridge are a total coincidence? The man was not a fool and knew he was selling to the Army. Of course it was a selling point that the head was exactly the same. I've fired many a reloaded .45 made by cutting off old neck-damaged '.06 brass. They work just fine. S B Harris 01:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not a total coincidence, however the case head dimensions are NOT identical. Look at the two side-by-side.  That's not the main issue, though, you cannot base one case on a future case, now can you?  It was not based on the .30-03 either, it was a unique case designed with a deeper head with larger extractor groove.  The fact that the rim diameter and, I believe, rim thickness were identical is due to convenience, it doesn't mean that they took the .30-03 cases and made .45 cases out of them.  This IS true of the 44 Automag, though as it was simply a .30-06 or .308 case cut down with a few other forming steps.  I know, I made them for a while from .308 Blanks. --Asams10 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the advice. Got a question for you: At 6.5 mm Grendel I put the figures into table form, does it make sense? Also, to "one inch of barrel length equals two grains of bullet weight" I added the conversion "(1 mm → 5 mg)", does that add up? Jɪmp 13:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know that that makes any sense. Not sure what you're trying to say.  In general, I try to stay out of the ammunition articles.  I know a great deal, but they don't 'float my boat' so I only take a passing interest in them.  --Asams10 (talk)


 * I s'pose if it doesn't it'll be removed. Jɪmp 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of assault rifles
An editor has nominated List of assault rifles, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of assault rifles AfD
I have hastily knocked together a sample treatment of an alternative format for the aforementioned page and posted it to the article's talk page. As you have weighed in on the previous version, I would invite your comments on the alternate I am proposing. Do you think this would make the page more worth keeping? Is it worth the effort to redo the whole page? Is the whole concept a lost cause? Inquiring minds want to know. OlenWhitaker  • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

final warning
You've been warned multiple times to cease disruptive editing. Continue to revert on the Walther P22 article, and you'll be blocked for disruptive editing. I don't like it is not a valid reason to remove good content that is violating no policies, and it's clearly disruptive. You have issues with me; that's fine. But just like the VT issue, you are the only one fighting your opinion. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Seriously, you're violating so many of our rules and guidelines, you really ought to take a break from editing because your negative contributions are by now outweighing your positive ones. Consider this your final warning. (PS: Don't scream admin abuse; I'm not going to be the one doing the blocking.) &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WTF! You've been on my case for a long time now. It is not admin abuse, no, it is failure to read my posts or edit summaries.  This is Bullshit.  You are doing EXACTLY what you acuse me of doing.  You are making disruptive edits of MY reversions.  You had a 180 degree opposite view the last time you sparred with me over editing.  Just because you don't like me, you chase me down and hound me over good edits.  The picture is inserted without context and I say, PUT IT IN CONTEXT and you don't, the inserter doesn't.  Who the FUCK is being disruptive here?  --Asams10 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

regarding this change
Would it be possible to keep that statement in the article with the tag a bit longer? If someone was able to find a documented range test that proves the statement, it might then be considered valid.--Rockfang (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Per my edit comment, no. This is an unsupportable statement.  Neither is more accurate than the other.  Any citations would be pure bullshit and the statement is pure bullshit because of it. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. I am curious though.  Why do you think one gun is not more accurate than the other?  I admit I don't know a lot about guns, but don't gun manufacturers/designers do some kind accuracy testing before a gun is sold?--Rockfang (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. They did function testing.  In WWII, they did little of that. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. Certainly on the German side Kar98ks were always tested for accuracy before they left the factory. They were also sighted in. As the war progressed these tests were conducted on specalist machines to replace manpower that had been sent to the front. See Backbone of the Wehrmacht for photographs of the test ranges and machines. While that is specific to Kar98k's I don't see any reason why it wouldn't apply to other small arms especially the need to sight them in.GunpicsBAS (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We're speaking of the STEN and the MP40, not the K98. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The weapon under discussion is irrelevant. Your claim that They did function testing. In WWII, they did little of that. is a baseless assumption, at least on the German side. If you want simple proof of this look at the prevelance of waffenampts on German guns. Each stamp is the personal signature of an inspector stating that that part is within specifications. Parts that were not within specification were rejected (some like G.43 receivers were re-cycled later in the war). Since all weapons need to be sighted in before they leave the factory there is no reason to not believe accuracy was tested at the same time.
 * If you have evidence that accuracy was not one of the pass or reject specifications of a German service arm, please post it.GunpicsBAS (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're asking me to argue with your assumptions of what I meant when I said something. I'm not going to get in a battle of wits with an unarmed man on this one.  What I removed from the article is NOT a supportable statement.  You'll have to make a defense of the statement I removed from the article before you can expect me to engage you on my comment on my edit comment on my removal.  Are you new at this? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding AK-47
Yes, I AM extremely certain. And if you would have bothered to take a look at the link I had posted as a reference, you would have found out. But whatever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranc (talk • contribs)


 * You took, like, 8 tries to get this edit right and still didn't sign? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by the way, your link was broken... I looked at it the first time you &%$*. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you go... Sudanese MAZ 7,62mm sub-machinegun. Note that it is a knockoff of the Chinese Type 56, not of the Russian AKM, as it has the underfolding spike bayonet. Sorry for the editing tries, just got a new notebook and trying to getting used to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranc (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, we've been through this before. It's a cartoon drawing of the rifle you're talking about, not the rifle itself.  There is no picture and the concensus before was that this was a poor quality web site and provided no evidence, let alone proof, that anybody in the Sudan was manufacturing AK's.  Why would they?  The Chinese type 56 and Romanian exports are about half the cost of a new gun. Did you even follow this the last time you tried to jam it down our throats? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, bud, that's the official website of the Military Industry Corporation of Sudan. But whatever, if you want me to say that you're right, well, you are. Not that I am actually thinking so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranc (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The "official website" of a corporation in Sudan... cool. Does it say they actually MANUFACTURE this firearm that they have a cartoon of and, if so, are there any PICTURES of said firearm anywhere?  I've got all of the texts available and not a single one lists Sudan as an official or unofficial manufacturer.  Nor has any turned up anywhere within or outside Sudan on any list of any weapon captured, confiscated, observed, etc.  If you're going to blindly trust a single cartoon picture of a type 56 that lists it as a 'submachinegun' then more power to you, kiddo. I'm not buying it though. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, man, I don't really want to be unpolite with you, so I won't challenge you for calling me "Kiddo" when you don't even know who I am. But, If you'd know something about the matter other than what you can read from "All of the texts available", you would know that Sudan has firearms manufacturing capabilities at least since the 1960s... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranc (talk • contribs)


 * Yeah, did I say they didn't? I just said I wanted proof, sport. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ...You would also know that it's normal to call the AK-47 a "Sub-Machine Gun" rather than a "Rifle"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranc (talk • contribs)


 * Uh, no it's not. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ...if you consider 7.62x39mm an intermediate caliber in comparaison with 7.62x51mm; that's why the East-Germans called their Kalashnikovs "MPi-K" (for Maschinen-Pistole Kalashnikow, or "Kalashnikov Sub-Machine Gun"). Even the Chinese and the Russians call or for some times have called the AK-47 a "Sub-Machine Gun" to distinguish it from "High-caliber" rifles 8the said high caliber was 7.62x54R for them). And remember that Sudan has a history of being bound to high-caliber rifles for official military use (Sudan was the first ever Country in the world, if not the one and only, to adopt the Armalite AR-10, and has been licensed to manufacture locally the HK G3, HK MP-5 and Rheinmetall MG-3 since about 30 years now. As for all the rest, let's see: nobody puts up a website with products if they don't want to sell'em... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranc (talk • contribs)


 * Who said they weren't trying to sell them? I said I needed PROOF that they were making them and not reselling the Chinese rifles rebranded.--&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ...The rifle can not be a Romanian or Chinese import 'cause for Sudan is currently a little bit hard to import anything military seen their involvement (to use an understatement) in the Darfur emergency. It would be much easier for them to make them on their own (I could make an AK myself out of stampings and scraps with hand tools like Pakistani gunsmiths do, if I only knew how to!). And the fact that "not has any turned up anywhere within or outside sudan or any list of any weapon captured, confiscated, observed, etc.". Neither does the Chinese QBZ-95, that's why many Americans I know have doubted of its existence 'till Chinese personnel in UN "Blue Helmets" service worldwide or in VIP/diplomatic protection duty in Iraq and Afghanistan started to show it out. By the way, I think the Sudanese MAZ is something made for export or rear-line. The Sudanese service rifle is their locally-manufactured G3, not the AK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranc (talk • contribs)


 * Cute, but you still haven't addressed the bottom line, verifiability. Try some, you'll like it. Don't patronize me into thinking your an expert and expect me to buy off.  You say in one breath that MAZ is being made for export when you've said two sentences earlier that they haven't turned up outside the Sudan because they guard it as a national secret like the Chinese.  Yeah, I'm going to have to call a waffle a waffle when I see one... don't have to be Belgian for that one. BTW, as authoritative as you are, you still don't sign your posts? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop edit warring to remove well referenced, cited material. You have already violated the 3RR rule with this series of edits:[. If you continue, you will be blocked for disruption. [[User:Swatjester| &rArr; ]]  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say where you can take your comments, but then again you'd probably respond the same way you have in the past. I'll tell you to lay the FUCK off though and stop stalking me. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the comment SwatJester deleted from his page instead of responding to:


 * Do you have nothing better to do than run around and pester me? Seriously, there's a discussion going on on the 10mm page and other editors agree. I can add ANYTHING to ANY article so long as it's referenced?  Is that your CURRENT position.  Your hipocracy and standards waffling is getting annoying.  Please, if you have something personal against me, get over it and lay off.  You seem to have a vendetta to solve and, if the world hasn't given you hints yet, I'll tell you flat out... SOMETIMES, you're wrong. Funny, you have no problem chasing me down and telling me.  I'm not flattered. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with stalking. These are articles that I also edit. Follow by the rules, assume good faith in others, and you will continue to be able to edit here. Fail to abide by them, and you won't be able to edit. Some of those rules are no personal attacks, no edit wars, and assuming good faith. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Let me cover assuming good faith.  Did I NOT assume good faith initially with the editor?  Did I not just merely put a 'dubious' tag and then explain myself on the talk page.  The other editor then reverted all of my edits and ignored my arguments on the talk page.  Realizing I don't have a good record of dealing with this, I did a lateral to other like-minded firearms article editors and, well, punted!  I think you are not assuming good faith when you chase down my edits and revert them.  I follow your edit history as well.  I can say that while I initially assumed good faith with this editor, he has proven bad faith.  I'm certain that you are operating in bad faith in your relentless efforts to muddle with my editing.  Assume good faith does not mean that you ignore bad faith.  If there's any failing you can acuse me of, it's not dealing with bad faith well.  Your bad faith and that of the editors that you acuse me of warring with.  I'll own up to that one.  As for personal attacks, I didn't call you any names, question your sexuality, disparage your religion, or anything of the sort.  I focused on your edits.  That's the crux of the issue. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The other editor certainly did not ignore your arguments. He presented his own counter arguments with evidence, and you ignored HIS arguments. As for personal attacks, accusations of hypocrisy, standards waffling, allegations of vendettas, stalking accusations, etc., all qualify. You need to relax. Please stop blaming others for all the ills in the world of Wikipedia, before looking to your own actions. You have a history of blocks for edit warring and violating 3RR. You repeatedly are the sole opposing voice to a talk page's consensus, and edit war to enforce your opinion against the consensus. This is the very definition of Tendentious Editing. I'm trying to help you here because I value contributors that have firearms knowledge. But if you don't adjust your editing habits, you're very likely to be blocked for a significant length of time in the future. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A threat? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that the blocking policy is to prevent further issues, not punish for past ones. SwatJester was, as far as I can tell, reminding you of the fact that a block may be issued if a pattern of disruptive editing shows no signs of stopping. I've not looked enough at your edit history to comment one way or the other on that. I will say that I looked enough to answer a report filed against you at WP:AIV. I didn't see any clear-cut vandalism, so I cleared the report and sent a message to the user. However, if your editing style is causing people to file reports on you, then maybe you want to consider how your actions are being perceived by other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, nice that you're asuming good faith at least. Who's filing reports on me? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was reported by an IP. Here's the diff of the report being filed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so an IP complains because I reverted an edit? I'm sure that lots of people dislike me because I try to uphold standards.  SwatJester has been on my case for a while, true, but the only reason I was reported in this case was that this editor was sore because I disagreed with him.  Luckily, this is a community and I don't get to make all of the decisions myself.  I find that more often than not, I am with the majority even if I'm 'testy' or 'crochity' as some might say. As many people as I've killed and people who've tried to kill me, I am not about to take petty threats from anybody, admin or no. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:GUNS
Thank you Asams10 for your corrections to the project guidelines, but I have one thing to ask: in the future I would prefer to be notified of things like that ahead of time. It's nothing against you, but I would prefer to vet all changes, before they happen.--LWF (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I intended to do so, however I didn't think about it till I had already saved it. Got caught up at work. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think we've all been there before. Thanks again.--LWF (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hate it when work gets in the way of the Wikipedia Edit Warring video game. I'm just about to be rebanned!  I can't let personnel issues at the office get in the way! --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosin-Nagant
I do not think my editing of the civilian section of the Mosin-Nagant page constitute vandalism. I expanded that section with true and verifiable information pertaining to the current civilian use of that rifle. If you are a gun enthusiast you should know better. User Saturno_v —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.62.211 (talk • contribs)


 * Your edits were unconstructive and constitute a buying guide. This ain't no gun shop armchair nor is it a table at a gun show... it's Wikipedia and not a buying guide or fanboy discussion about what's better, the the .303 British or 7.62x54mm Russian. Not that I don't appreciate the discussion, but take it to "the high road" or "the firing line" and keep it away from here. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen

My post didn't costitute a buying guide at all I just stated FACTS and I never made any biased comparison with any cartridge in my edit. I stated that the rifle is cheap to buy across North America and it is appreciated the the reliability of the action period. My comments about the advice on checking the conditions of the rifle are equivalent to several articles on guns on Wikipedia that warn people about not mismatching cartridge type (for example the 8 mm Mauser page), check the conditions of old military surplus rifles before to shoot etc... Go to the link pertaining the Colt 1911 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_1911 and you will see that there are sections that discuss the price of some models and how the pistol appreciated is appreciated for its handling and superior stopping power. So if you consider my edit on the Mosin Nagant "fanboy" parlance even the page ont he 1911 it is. So do not elevate yourself to the role of Wikicop with the wrong person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.62.211 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC) User saturno_v

However I did remove the last portion of my edit that mention the fact that the Mosin-Nagant is probably the cheapest full power centerfire cartridge rifle to be found probably even cheaper than a 22 Long Rifle carbine. Maybe that little section went over the top. Just that. user Saturno_v —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.62.211 (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Model37uplandgun650x215.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Model37uplandgun650x215.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

AK-47 at FAR
AK-47 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

3RR report

B52
Why are you replacing cited information from the specifications of the B52 with information and refusing to provide a cite?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in the references, Mr. Rocket Scientist. I already said that.  You're refusing to accept reality. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thickness of brass
While it is true that no explicit standards for cartridge case thickness (or even composition) exist, there are implicit requirements based on operating pressure, feasibility of reloading, desire to maximize available muzzle energy, and durability. My change in particular was with regards to the claim made by the prior editor (an IP address) that military brass is thinner than commercial--this is provably not true, and I did provide a source (Accurate Powder's online loading info) stating that The military cases may be substantially heavier than the commercial products, and loads using military brass should be reduced at least 10%. However the use of the phrase "may be substantially" is ambiguous; it may mean "always but sometimes substantially", as I was reading it, or it may mean "sometimes and sometimes substantially". The section on .308 Winchester is differently worded, but also ambiguous: When using military cases, the handloader must exercise caution because many of these are much heavier than commercial brass. The mantra that 5.56mm and 7.62mm military brass has a lower starting load than commercial brass is widely published, but is probably always coached in non-absolute terms. Of course, this is all made harder by the fact that the "5.56x45mm" or "5.56mm NATO" cartridge doesn't actually exist; the specifications are always in terms of things like "M193 Ball" or "SS109", which are different cartridges, with different chamber dimensions. Now if only ATK would list the average mass of their commercial .223 (they do for their military 5.56mm), I could provide a sourced, concrete example of cartridge differences... scot (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary SMG article revert
Please check to see what was changed before making blind reverts. Without checking to see what had been changed you made the false assumption that I had made some change in violation of wp:ENGVAR when what I was actually doing was following wp:ENGVAR. By blindly reverting my edit you broke the consistency (which you then partially corrected with an armor spelling, but not the defense spelling) and inadvertently removed unrelated to your reason for reverting changes of adding a fact check on an unsourced and unverified statement as well as a redirect page by-pass. 76.22.0.33 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

F-15
Your edit to the caption under the F-15 image makes sense to me, although I am hardly an expert of any kind on that a/c or its airframe. Therefore, please don't think the following is not in good faith. The current caption says "An F-15 with inlets in different positions.". They're not really, unless the name of that flap looking thingy on the port intake is called an "inlet". Is the caption trying to say that my flap looking thingy on the port intake is in a different position to that on the starboard intake. Obviously true, but it the flap thingy is not called an "inlet", the caption needs to be amended. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The parts that are in different positions are called "ramps" or "intake ramps". On looking at the picture a second time, it is possible that the RIGHT engine (Aircraft Right or #2 engine) is about to be shut down. The Left engine (#1 engine) is shut down as the default position for the ramp is UP.  It appears that the crew chief in the picture is about to catch the fuel that dumps out of the engine as it shuts down. It is proper, btw, to call the items intake ramps, not just intakes.  I'll make the changes. Also, despite the name of the picture, this is a "C" model F-15 with no CFT's and the "Mod-Eagle" paint scheme.  There were three paint schemes for operational F-15's, the "Ghost" which was very light, the "Mod-Eagle" phased in during the late 80's, and the "36118" color, also known as "Gunship Grey" monochrome paint on the "E" models.  --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

William Ayers Article
I noticed you stopped by the William Ayers page the other day and that your edit, which I agreed with, was reverted. If you have the time and care to make your views known, there is currently a discussion underwayhere regarding the use of the term terrorist. Not a big a deal if you don't have time or don't care to get involved. Regards, VeritasAgent (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gardner gun identification - can you help ?
Hi there, I see yuou recently updated the Gardner gun article so maybe you can help here.. I found a great photo of Royal Navy marines (I think) with a 5-barrel rifle-calibre gun of some sort, in the 1890s I think. I've uploaded it to Commons here : Image:5BarrelGardnerGunRoyalNavy.jpg. At first I thought it was a Gardner gun, but I don't see the large housing at the breech end which I see on pictures of other Gardner guns. What is visible of the breech end looks more like the similar Nordenfelt gun here : Image:5-BarrelNordenfeltRifleCalibreGunNavalCarriage.jpg, the rest of the gun looks like a Gardner gun. Any thoughts ? Rcbutcher (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can't authoritatively identify the piece in question. It is my understanding that there were, literally, scores of these Mitrailleuse type guns made in various calibers and configurations. Your picture is clearly of the Nordenfelt variety, however, again, there were many models of that particular gun.  Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article is imprecise in that it refers to the Nordenfelt as a Machinegun; it is not.  It is a manually reloading volley gun.  The distinction is that the Nordenfelt has a separate trigger and is not fired automatically as are the Gardner and Gattling. More to the point, you have to rack the lever back and forth... two motions of the lever. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - so it's definitely not a Gardner gun then ? Can you tell me what identifies it as a Nordenfelt variety ? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Gardner gun would have one or two barrels, never more. The Nordenfelt gun has a single, sliding breech and more barrels, generally 4 or 5 in pictures and examples I've seen.  Problem is, I can't positively identify anything in this picture. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

M16 rifle
Hey, please keep your edit summaries civil, refrain from characterizing the good-faith edits of others as vandalism, and follow consensus even though you may not agree with it. Failure to heed the above will likely result in an enforced wiki-break for you. Be warned. The relevant consensus which you are working against is at WP:MILMOS. Have a nice day. --John (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Listen, we've been down this road before. You've abused your powers for a long time.  You know as well as I do that the manual of style flag section is not a rule, it's a guideline.  You try to enforce your interpretation of that (which grossly differs from mine) and act like you are speaking for God.  Your edits are not good faith, they are counterproductive and counter to the concensus that was built against you... you were the only one against inclusion of flags.  Your browbeating and bullying are really childish as are your incessant threats. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you don't like the consensus but that isn't my fault. We work on consensus here and if you are unable to adjust to that you should leave. Really. Meantime, I have told you where to go to try to change the consensus; your silly and misspelled insults I will ignore. Think about it. --John (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We have indeed been down this road before Asams10. It involves you ignoring consensus and getting irate at the majority's opinion. We've long known that your interpretations differ grossly from reality. Listen to John. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  06:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, now everybody is here for the party. My interpretations can't differ from reality.  The MOS does not say explicitly or implicity that you are never to use flags in the infobox.  John's interpreting it to mean that you can't, I disgree and a concensus was reached counter to John's interpretations.  He is now trying to undo that concensus. And, as I've told you before, you know for darned sure that I'm not going to give in to John's arguments because of threats.  Hmmm, John is right because he's an admin and he posted more than I did?  I'm positive that this is not the case, I stated my interpretation clearly, and most agreed with me.  So that means that John deep in the minority, just as I was on the Walther P22 debate, eh?  So, if you're going to play fair, and I really don't expect you to, you'll agree with my interetation as being the concensus? You've set lots of double standards before, I honestly don't think that you'll deviate from that pattern now. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is fairly clear to me that you don't understand WP:CONSENSUS. Take a look at the policy, and at the Milmos page I referred to. But that pales into insignificance beside your rudeness. I guarantee absolutely that the next time I see you make an abusive edit summary or use "rvv" to revert a non-vandalistic edit, I will do my utmost to ensure you get a medium-sized block. You've been getting away with this kind of abuse too long, and it isn't good for the community for you to get away with it. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are there for a good reason and they apply to everyone. As I said, be warned. --John (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You call me rude, but I'm attacking your arguments, not you personally. I have no fucking clue who you are but from what you've wrote here.  And all that I have gotten from you is Threat after Threat after Threat.  For what?  When somebody vandalizes a page, I revert it.  RVV is an acronym.  I'm not spending an hour arguing why I reverted, "AK-47S SUCK COCKZ" because it doesn't serve my time well.  You engage me in discussion (albiet with absolutely no objectivity) and then threaten to ban me over and over again. That's worth some of my time.  But, to ban me for calling a spade a spade is just plain abusive.  Yes, you are being abusive.  Have I made that clear yet?  Every time you can't win a discussion or argument, you toss WP policies out there that are tangentially related.  Who said I'm not being civil?  You say.  If your attacks on me were civil, I would respond civilly.  I have never personally attacked you and never will... Again, I have no fucking clue who you are, how can I attack you personally? Non-vandalistic edits?  What?  Your interpretation again.  Adding content counter to a concensus you were there for is VANDALISM!  I've read WP:Concensus and WP:Vandalism.  Have you read WP:Civil for yourself or do you just like applying the rules to everybody but you?  What you're doing is certainly not civil nor is it constructive. Crass, yes.  Unapologetic?  What do I have to apologize for?  But you, sir, are tossing accusations left and right and attacking me at every turn.  You've browbeaten me to no end and you complain about me?  How's about using INTROSPECTION and apply some of those rules to yourself first? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be an invalid use of "rvv"; nor did it help you save typing time. Just use "rv" for such cases. Apart from anything else, rvv is an exception from 3RR, which you should not be claiming in that case. Also You call me rude... I have no fucking clue who you are is obviously rude William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, the word "fuck" offends some folks, but I'll stand by the extra "v" in the case you pointed out. He's just trying to stir the pot as he know's it's counter to the concensus.  Further, vandalism is edits that are not made in good faith.  Therefore, his adding content he knows should not be there and/or removing content he knows is allowable (and he did) constitutes bad faith and vandalism. Were he to want to re-engage and try to fight the battle he lost over flags in infoboxes, this is CERTAINLY not the way to do it.  Trust me, I've seen it a time or two.


 * Additionally, deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves constitutes incivility. John taunting me in this manner might seem all high-and-mighty on his part, however it is senseless and rude from my point of view and, at its base, incivil. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merges/redirects today...
That was a little far to go boldly, without asking anyone beforehand or discussing.

I'm going to roll those back later today, if you haven't. If you want to propose mergers or redirects, that's fine. Feel free to do that and see what people's feedback is. But that was too much to just unilaterally do.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * George, what merges and redirects are you talking about? I did lots of stuff today, however one was just finishing a merge and another was an older, uncontested merge.  Two were plain ole stupid-simple. I'm ASSUMING you're speaking of the double and single-column magazine articles?  That merger was also discussed long ago, IIRC. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I get it. You created one and were watching both.  Well, first of all, the double-column magazine was inaccurage at its base.  It's not a double-column magazine being discussed, it is a staggered row magazine.  True double-column magazines include the Spectre SMG magazine, the Ram-Line magazine for the 10/22, and some Sullivan designes you're probably not aware of.  All of them are patented and none of them work very good.  Since the article is, in and of itself, a misnomer, you'd have to meet a pretty high standard to keep it.  It is thorougly and completely covered under Magazine (firearm) and if you don't think so, please improve that one.  Your two articles were mere shells and practically orphaned. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're using firearms engineering technology (yes, "staggered row" is technically correct) in a general purpose encyclopedia. The term of art used in common usage is "Double column magazine".  That is therefore the correct one to list.  I spent a long time looking at the resultant entries in the main Magazine article, and it simply isn't good enough.  The average gun owner will have no idea what you mean by "staggered row" and will say "that's a double-column mag" if asked.  That makes that the right way to describe it here.
 * I wish you'd stop condescending to me about firearms engineering. I know all about the Spectre and the oddball Ram-Line magazines and recall having seen references to Sullivan mags but not seen one firsthand.  In addition to staggered mags of various shapes and sizes, I've done engineering work on various true double column mags, including for calibers not normally stuck into detachable magazines and some which are woefully incompatible with staggered row magazines.  I know what the differences are at the engineering level.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll definitely have to apologize for the tone. Often, I notice that others read what I write and infer a tone, though I don't intend it to be taken one way or another.  It's unintentional, in other words.  As far as condescending, I try not to be, however with your background, I'm sure you've experienced gross mistakes in even the 'authoritative' texts.  My background is from design, not engineering.  The process is as such: Design, prototype (tool room), engineer tooling and work prototype for production, produce. From a design standpoint, you'd have to agree that double-column is incorrect.  While it deserves mention as a side-note, it is incorrect.  If you look at my edit history, there weren't that many uses of the phrase, "double-column" so it's a common misnomer, yes, but the level of usage the word has gotten is failry low.  The correct term is staggered column of which they can be single feed or double feed.  Some notable exceptions from a design point of view are 'pinched' mags like the M11 magazine where the front of the magazine is narrower to 'unstagger' the front of tapered bullets... thus removing the need for a curve in the magazine.  If memory serves, Bill Ruger or one of his cronies patented this idea for the MkI pistol so the 10-rd magazine would feed reliably with rimmed cartridges.  Memory fails me now.  At any rate, the Ruger is a single colum in the front, slight stagger in the rear IIRC.  Gah, I'll have to break open the Patent files again. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not writing for firearms designers, we're writing for common usage. That's the Wikipedia style guide.
 * In any engineering field, you can jump right out into the local jargon and confuse general readers. Wikipedia's way is specifically not to do that.  We use the common usage language to describe things.  We also provide the more precise technical jargon if possible, to educate people, but we don't assume that or use that in the general descriptions.
 * What I might put in a patent application and what I write here are two wildly different things. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I know I wasn't exactly invited to this discussion, but I feel a solution similar to what I proposed on talk:Magazine (firearms) could be used. The article could explain that both terms are used, but that one is more accurate from a proper standpoint. And in this case it could point out that one is in much more common usage.--LWF (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * George, a disambiguation statement is already in the Magazine article. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

B-52 Stratofortress
Merely an edit conflict, watch your over-reaction, this is becoming symptomatic and has been under review before. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC).


 * Yes, I am well aware that people disagree with me. Thanks for reiterating that fact. Over-reacting?  It depends on if you care.  I care. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Magazine (firearms)
Actually, both of you are right on the edge, but outside the technical definition of 3RR (three reverts within 24 hr period). I just went back and checked, and neither of you has technically violated that for any 24 hr period.

Both of you are edit warring, however. I am going to leave this message on both user talk pages. Please stop. There has been edit warring on both sides, and I am not going to ascribe blame for it, but as clear edit warring outside the 3RR definition is still blockable both of you need to stop and take it to the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ni!"
I hereby sentence the both of you to provide 2 reliable references for the magazine article, or I shall be forced to say "Ni" at you again! scot (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Hatcher's Notebook and the M1 Garand TM. Therefore, I say, "Ekky-ekky-ekky-ekky-z'Bang, zoom-Boing, z'nourrrwringmm."
 * Well, don't just tell me, format then as references and to stick 'em in the article. I just shelled out the money for Ackley's handloading manuals, that's my gun book budget for a while...  scot (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, aparently no amount of referencing will suffice. This isn't about logic at this point, methinks. I put three references in.  I'll have to read Hatcher's Notebook again.  Julian Hatcher is about as close to a firearms super-expert as exists.  His is the word of God. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on talk:Magazine (firearms)
Asams10, I looked at your comment about Browning on magazine's talkpage, and it made me wonder, what are your particular religious beliefs, if you don't mind me asking?--LWF (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-denominational Christian... soon-to-be founder of the Church of Browning. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your GA is under review
Hi there, I see that you are a primary contributor to the article M1 Garand rifle. This article has come under review for Good article reassessment as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified which are listed on the talk page. Please begin to address these points in the next seven days or the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gas lever operation
I'm not sure I agree with your logic. First, by the logic you gave, a pump action and a lever action would be the same thing (and in fact, the typical gas operated rifle is just a pump rifle--had Browning been working on pump actions rather than lever actions in the 1880s, he'd have built it that way). In addition, how would you describe Browning's original prototype? It was basically a .44 lever action rifle that used the muzzle blast impinging on a plate to actuate the lever. Is that short stroke or long stroke? There is no cylinder or piston at all in that case, so the definition breaks down. I'm not sure in the M1895 if there is a cylinder/piston or not, it may just be a hole and a plate, so again, you get a breakdown in the short stroke/long stroke definition. Had it been any other firearm, I'd just classify it as an oddity and leave it out, but since it was the first practical gas operated mechanism patented, I think it's important enough to merit a significant description. scot (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * These are two unique systems (one with a flapper at the muzzle, the other with a refined flapper operated by a piston perpendicular to the bore axis. Several issues. First, you listed this system at the top though there are only two firearm models I'm aware of, one of which was a prototype. Second, the operation of the bolt is through a series of levers, but the power provided to the bolt is through a gas piston.  Though it might seem novel, it's simply a Rube Goldberg way of doing the same thing, extraction, ejection, and feeding. Though core to the argument is how to classify this and where to put it.  I'd suggest a discussion on the talk page prior to adding anything back. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion cloned at Talk:Gas-operated reloading. scot (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Input on C7/C8 merge proposal
I would appreciate your input on the new proposal to merge the C8 page with the C7 page (Discuss). I believe it was abruptly ended the last time, and that the lack of "consensus" was based on false observations and inaccurate understandings, as much as legitimate points. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Just a heads up, a certain agitator has implicated you rather arbitrarily in the sockpuppet investigation against another firearms editor here. Koalorka (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File:HKUMP45MAG.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HKUMP45MAG.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 08:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Rifle FG42 model 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rifle FG42 model 1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian "cousins" of the AK-47


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ruger-lcp-1.jpg
Hello. In case you read this, the above file has been marked for missing permission at Commons. Since you were the original uploader here at Wikipedia and added a quotation that looks a written permission from the photographer Ken Lunde, I thought I'd leave you a note. Regards, De728631 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Legal status of the AK-47 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Legal status of the AK-47 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Legal status of the AK-47 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Clubbed thumb 2.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Walther PP
You appear to be inactive, but just in case you occasionally see this page I'm here to ask your help. I'm cleaning up Walther PP and traced some unsourced text to an edit by you back in 2006:. The text in question is this: Do you have any memory of where you got that information? Someone tagged it as "citation needed" and if possible it'd be better to keep it rather than delete it as unverifiable. If you come across this note after it's already been deleted no worries - you can add it back with a citation at any time. Rezin (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The PP and PPK were the world's first successful Double Action autos. They were (and are) copied and still in production by Carl Walther Sportwaffen and other companies. The Walther pattern has been used in numerous other pistols including, but not limited to, the Soviet Makarov nad the Czecheslovokian CZ50. Although it was an excellent pistol, the Walther had competition during its time. The Mauser HSC pistol and the Sauer model 38H (also known as the model "H") were both successful pistols in their own right.  Production of the Sauer pistol ceased with the end of the war, but the refined Sig P230 and later P232 owe a great deal to the earlier weapon.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Glock models
Template:Glock models has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

AR-15 Rifle listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AR-15 Rifle. Since you had some involvement with the AR-15 Rifle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Filipino Association of Montreal and Suburbs for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Filipino Association of Montreal and Suburbs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Filipino Association of Montreal and Suburbs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Loafiewa (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)