User talk:Rezin

user:Everybodyswillyisaspeedboat
I have referred your sockpuppet concerns about user:Everybodyswillyisaspeedboat to User:Ansh666 he has dealt with him before and was instrumental in having him blocked.--RAF910 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right but user:Jetwave Dave has been blocked since 2007, so it's pointless to pursue it any further.--RAF910 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GUNS importance assessment
As you surmised, the ten percent standard is intended to be interpreted as an order of magnitude, rather than a difference between a disqualified 9 percent and a qualified 11 percent. I am certainly open to alternative suggestions to clarify the criterion; but I disagree about the absence of sources to define an order of magnitude quantification.

The American gun culture includes a large number of writers who emphasize opinions rather than pursuing statistics. As the internet allows anyone to screen for information sources confirming an existing bias, such authors may be well represented by conventional search-engine algorithms. I personally enjoyed articles by Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor relating divergent first-hand experiences hunting with light or heavy bullets; but I sought out articles by Julian Hatcher to find results of side-by-side scientific method comparisons.

I believe sources are available to quantify the features qualifying as top importance articles. It may be difficult to find quantification in the popular press (including the anti-gun press); but well-researched sources are worth the effort required to find them.

Assessment of importance requires a fundamental understanding of the subject; and the amount of time required will vary inversely with the experience of the editor. I wouldn't encourage you to undertake this assessment task with an unrealistic impression of the knowledge or time required. As a practical matter, however, you may understand the subject well enough to know the answer after reading the article. If you think the subject represented more than ten percent of the firearms or ammunition, it's probably a top importance article; but it's probably not top importance if you have doubts. I doubt your decisions on that basis will be challenged; but it shouldn't be an unreasonable task to find documentation on the few which might be. Thewellman (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wish I could suggest a single source, but sources will vary with the individual article. Trade publications are sometimes good sources, and some government statistics are useful. Early enforcement action reports on the gunpowder trade association, for example, include information about the extent to which DuPont was monopolizing production of explosives (including gunpowder) prior to World War I. BATF statistics can be useful for recent decades if one studies the criteria for the numbers being listed. There are some fairly good statistics about available firearms in some government reports describing mobilization for major conflicts, because of consideration of potential use of scavenged weapons and ammunition until uniform armament is available. Sources describing the most significant types of firearms and ammunition often quantify the extent to which the improvement changed firearm production, distribution and use.


 * The importance criteria were intended to avoid conflict with the military history project. No matter how popular a given article may be, it can be counterproductive to have more than one project tweaking that article to meet individual project goals. The 5.56×45mm NATO clearly fits within the realm of military history, while military history is unlikely to assign much importance to the .25 ACP despite occasional military use. Thewellman (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Review Request - Draft:Florida_Carry
I'd like to request assistance with Draft:Florida_Carry. Help Desk recommended that I contact someone from WikiProject Firearms Stogiec (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Muzzle Brakes
California law bans "Flash suppressors" on rifles as an "evil feature" that makes it a so-called "Assault Weapon". However, muzzle brakes are legal. See here for the first part and here for part 2 "(b)“flash suppressor” means any device that reduces or conceals the visible light or flash created when a firearm is fired. This definition includes flash hiders, but does not include compensators and muzzle brakes (devices attached to or integral with the muzzle barrel to utilize propelling gasses for counter-recoil)." The source is here for the MB exemption.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In case you were wondering, they define flash suppressors as having slots cut in it, whereas muzzle brakes have holes. Clearly they want to blind shooters as well as deafen them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the DOJ link is better. There is a sentence in that book that states the same, but I believe it is blocked from preview and that page is the nearest link. I've found that a few times, or sometimes the link changes because what was once the free part of google books is no longer free. It's fixed now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Headstamp
I am a major contributor to the article and I just read your concerns.
 * 1) I have moved all the purely military headstamps to the List of military headstamps article. The civilian contractors are still listed on the Headstamp page because they are not purely military and are primarily a commercial concern. A List of commercial headstamps article might be a good idea but the article is still too small to justify it.
 * 2) I am trying to find data to replace the disputed sources, but I want to leave them in place unless they are disputed with a valid reference.
 * 3) The manufacturer data is being used to clarify the headstamps. They are not big enough points to build a full article around and often clarify questions (the need for the letters used, why does CHAMPION-brand ammo have an AMMO-Co. headstamp, etc.).

Hotspur23 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Zackmann08 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heckler & Koch SL8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semi-automatic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleting citations
Deleting legitimate citations to scholarly works is destructive. It doesn't matter if the scholar has added them himself, so long as their relevant to the material. You're not even leaving explanations on the article talk pages. If you believe they're unreliable then please raise the matter at WP:RSN. Otherwise you're just being disruptive. Rezin (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are by know well aware that ICEMANWCS is self-promoting spammer WP:SPAMMER and yet you defend his original research edits WP:OR. Why, what is your interest in doing so? He has continued to misuse (and actually greatly increased his misuse) Wikipedia after other editors have brought it to his attention. There is little point in defending edits that you do not have knowledge about. If you like find another source and edit appropriately. A personal website/blog that make claims that cannot be substantiated is not a reliable source WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. Please look up these policies before hounding editors cleaning up spam, original research and unreliable sources. 172.56.9.67 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't converse with you if you keep switching IP addresses - please register an account. And please read the pages you're citing - they don't say what you think they do. Rezin (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We are doing just fine on your talk page which is appropriate as you have the concerns about removing spam. No desire to register as it is not in my interest and it is not required per wikiguidelines. Sorry about the IP changing but that is beyond my control as I am at the whim of my cell provider. 172.56.9.67 (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. I have been editing since 2005 so I am familiar with much wiki policy and wiki lawyering but alas I am no certified expert.


 * Please register an account so you'll have a stable talk page. See User talk:172.56.8.192‎ and User talk:208.54.38.255 Rezin (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you're familiar with WP policies then please quote the text which says it's appropriate to delete reliable sources just because they were added by the author. And please take this to a noticeboard to get other opinions, since you're so dismissive of mine. Rezin (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Spam from an editor promoting his own website and original research is far from a reliable source. Please refrain from making false and misleading accusations to promote your argument. Again, please see WP:SPAMMER, WP:OR, WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. 172.56.9.67 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you have failed to read the policies about spamming, original research, and reliable sources or are choosing to ignore such arguments for the sake of furthering your original position. When someone clearly ignores existing Wikipedia policy when continually making points that contradict the policies I am skeptical about ones intentions. Please familiarize yourself more with those policies before wikihounding me any further. You see some value in keeping references clearly intended as spam to an editors own website. I do not and policy is my side and I have not seen an argument of yours as of yet that is within Wikipedia's policies. There is no reward for spamming Wikipedia if editors do a good job policing against it. Please reconsider that by hounding editors who are properly policing Wikipedia against abuse you are being disruptive to keeping Wikipedia a quality encyclopedia. Thanks for considering Wikipedia's policies and the impact of ignoring such policies. 172.56.9.67 (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Galleries RE
Hey! Thanks for letting me know what i did wrong in my recent edits. As you might or might not have seen,i'm still quite new to Wikipedia,but i'm learning from experiences like these.

I do have a question though,could you explain what you meant with "It might be a better contribution to make sure all of those images are properly categorized at the Commons, etc., which are linked from the WP articles."?

Again,thanks for letting me know,i'll pay more attention when making a gallery and adding in new pictures. As you might've seen,i was the one who updated all the Wikitables in the Lists of weapons page,and i updated most pages aswell (Altough i'm still working on that.)

I don't know if this is the proper way of responding,but i clicked on talk and it led me here,so i thought i'd go ahead and write it anyway.

Cheers! MatteoNL97 (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Henry rifle thanks
Dear User:Rezin. Thank you for your wiki-thanks for my edits cleaning up the Henry Rifle page. Always pleased to be of help. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

James Rawles Mentions
Why the systematic removal of mentions of James Rawles and his books from so many WP pages? He is very strongly pro-2d Amendment, and surprisingly knowledgable about guns, for a novelist. TheSwitzerdude (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Gun politics discussion from Mike's page
It occurred to me that Mike's Talk page, given his ban, is not the best place to have the discussion, so...


 * FWIW, I've been thinking of floating a proposal to remove "organizations" and "legislation" from the GUNS scope. That way it would be focused just on the firearms themselves without the political issues which seem to cause the headaches. Rezin (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a slightly different take on this. What about creating a "Task Force" within the Firearm Project that is specifically for "gun politics" articles. It would similar in nature to how the GGTF is setup within the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. The gun politics articles could have their own section and talk page as if it were its own project, but without having to go through all the formal rigamaroll of creating a separate project. Granted, the same suggestion could be made for the WikiProject Politics or WikiProject Law, but I don't know how receptive those would be about the specific subject matter. Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that another venue is needed, and thanks for picking up the thread. The project talk page is perhaps the place any definitive discussion should take place, but this is fine for now. I was proposing a solution to the problem of editors getting banned because of their involvement in gun politics articles. It's not much of a solution, because people edit whatever articles they're interested in regardless of project boundaries. At best, it would be a solution for those in the project who say "I'm not interested in that political stuff and just want to focus on technical articles" because political articles wouldn't show up on the project radar anymore. Would a task force accomplish the same thing? Another reason for narrowing the scope of the project is that the "technical" articles need so much help. Since the project was founded very few FA or GA articles have been promoted. Political articles are timesinks which distract the project from focusing on improving articles on the core topic: firearms. If segregating political articles into a task force, or handing them over to Politics or Law, would result in more attention being given to those core articles then I'd definitely be in favor of doing that. Rezin (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked over at the WP:GGTF page. What I noticed immediately is that it has 73 members, all since August 2014. That's almost as many as the whole GUNS project. Probably most people who sign up form a project or task force don't give it much attention. A question would be whether there'd be enough interested participants to make a task force sustainable. I guess there's only one way to find that out. Rezin (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think a Task Force would accomplish the narrowing of a scope and definitely provide a gathering place for gun politics articles to be discussed. Using the GGTF as a blueprint, that's exactly what it seems to have done for the Systemic Bias Project. Essentially ALL discussion of gender issues in articles takes place in the GGTF.


 * I think the biggest challenge will simply be to create an appropriate Talk page template that directs everyone to the Task Force pages instead of the main Firearm Project pages. Once we do that, in under the span of a day we could change out the existing templates everywhere its used. Maybe I can even come up with a nifty logo or icon of a flintlock pistol positioned in front of a piece of old parchment paper to represent the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, etc. Heck, the Task Force could have its own article rating system too so that there is a clear and distinct separation of the "technical" from the "political".


 * As for sustaining membership, I think also having a Project invitation template like the GGTF has would be a good idea too. That way if we spot a new Editor making significant contributions, we can point them in the right direction. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm off to work, more later. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm one of those who's been avoiding political articles, so I can't offer much help with the task force itself though I might be able to help with the mechanics of setting it up. But I support the idea of changing the mixed scope of the main GUNS project to reinvigorate it. May I suggest that you draw up a proposal for the project talk page? No rush. Rezin (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a thought - would it make sense to have a "joint task force" shared by Guns, Law, and Politics? This is a topic shared equally between them and getting the widest possible involvement may make the effort more productive while avoiding claims of bias. Rezin (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think at this point, once there's been some discussion in the Project and hopefully no objection to the idea, most of the work to get it going would be "mechanical". As for a joint task force, I think the only way to accomplish that would be to fully create a new project. Plus the thought occurred to me that we might have a hard time convincing members from those other projects that it should be separate. It seems that no one outside of GUNS objects to the gun politics article being part of our project, but they might feel differently if the perception is that we're trying to orphan them or pawn them off on someone else. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 10:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I probably don't understand the process, but it may be about as much work to set up a task force as a new project.If I understand correctly, GUNS started out as a task force of the MILHIST project, so nothing is fixed. Looking through the archives I came across some opposition, even leading to a proposal to delete the project, but that's mostly in the past. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Rezin (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Along these same lines, if we set up a Task Force within GUNS, there's far less procedure to go through, but we can effectively achieve the appearance of a separate project. Hopefully that perception will be enough that anyone that participates won't have an issue with it being part of the Firearm Project.


 * The new Project setup process as I understand it effectively involves getting community consensus and approval. Something that given the subject matter may be impossible to do.


 * That said, for the initial "mechanics", I suggest we use the layout and design of something like the Village Pump Project and then integrate as many of the ideas and attributes of the GGTF as we can like the invitation template plus a specialized Project Template. Generally speaking, I think it would be beneficial if we give GPTF (Gun Politics Task Force) a "look and feel" similar to the Politics and Law projects. This might seem like an unnecessary effort, but part of our objective is to distance the GUNS articles from the political ones, so it makes sense to make it separate in every way that we can.


 * Our next step would be to create a Sandbox page so we can develop the code before going live with it. What do you think? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I like your suggestions for how to create the "GPTF". FWIW, here's the guideline WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. It has a lot of useful info. To my surprise, it mentions joint task forces. This page is where proposals go: WikiProject Council/Proposals. It says task forces may be listed, but are usually just proposed on the project page. Curiously, it says projects don't need to be listed either, though it's strongly recommended. Here's the main project guideline: WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject. That's something everyone involved in running any project (or task force) should read - the Firearms project hasn't been as active or organized as it could be. This task force initiative may reinvigorate the parent project.Rezin (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, those are really great resources, good find! I'll take some time to properly read through everything. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Checking in
I have not forgotten, just letting ideas percolate a bit. I still plan to move forward with setting up pages for the GCTF. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Let me know if I can help. Rezin (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow! The encroachment of political BS is getting more rampant. I'm trying to fend of infection in the Firearm article. Somebody is trying to insert stats on "firearm deaths". Anyway, do you think we should start setting up the GPTF in a Sandbox or just go straight to WikiProject_Firearms/Gun_Politics_Task_Force? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest discussing it on the WP:GUNS talk page first. Remember though, that the task force has no control over article content. Rezin (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, would you mind starting it? I'm happy to chime in, but I think you have more credibility with the project than I do. Some people consider me "pro gun", some think I'm "anti-gun", and some just think I'm a jerk or off my nut. I'd just like any article to reflect good research and a balanced presentation. This whole idea was inspired by Mike's suggestion to not have political articles be a part of the project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject FirearmsRezin (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Couple things... 1) I've inquired about messaging all of the members of the project to get others to comment about the proposal. If its allowed, I'll message each of them to come to the Talk page, read the proposal, and hopefully comment. 2) In order to get more eyes/input/participation for the Task Force, I'm thinking about asking the Editor of the SignPost newsletter to run a story about it. Good/Bad idea or just too soon? What do you think? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been pretty busy recently and haven't spent as much time on this as it needs. some project put out regular newsletters - I don't think they require separate opt-ins. To avoid accusations of canvassing the message should be neutral and brief. I might have some time on the weekend if you need any help.
 * Also, if this gets consensus then an important step will be defining the scope and deciding which articles the task force will cover. Have you given that any thought? Rezin (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked an Admin about the WP:CANVASSing aspect and got approval assuming the message is neutral. I'm just going to ask Active members to visit the topic on the Talk page, read the proposal, and comment if they'd like. Maybe a sentence or two and as generic as possible.
 * Re: Also, yes, very much so. There are three primary changes that I suggest as part of the set up process.
 * First, on the Project page under scope, we'd remove two words: organizations, legislation. The addition of a sentence explaining what the GPTF specifically addresses would probably be a good idea.
 * Second, Project Templates need to either be modified or developed to address the GPTF, including an Invitation template. I'm a little leery about coming up with a Classification system right off the bat. That discussion process might be best left to whomever joins. That said, going forward I think that invitations should be posted in Law and Politics projects.
 * Third, the Categories need to be addressed. I'm not entirely sure how this is managed from either a practical or technical standpoint, but luckily we have the Military History project members to ask for help. They've gone through this already, several times I think.
 * There are some other minor items like moving the ArbCom and the RfC notices to the GPTF pages as well. Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Checking in (again, April 2015)
So the templating and setup seems pretty straightforward in my head at this point. I just need to pick a weekend and devote most of it to formatting and seriously complex things like "color choices" and "button style". But one thought I had in particular was to get three kinds of Users involved in the moderation of the GPTF. Basically a three person council made up of one active Firearm Project person (sooooooo NOT nominating myself or accepting it, if made), one active and interested Law Project person, and one active and interested Law Project person. That way if (who are kidding) when there are disputes, the three can discuss and decide and since its a odd amount there will usually be a tie-breaker. I'm also assuming that the three project aspects will be fairly represented so that information accuracy and neutral presentation will win out over POV and just plain BS.

So even though the GPTF's "home" will be under the umbrella of the GUNS Project, it will have input from the related projects. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Vista Outdoor
I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a look at my work at Vista Outdoor Inc. Thanks.Singaporebobby (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your tag at Palm Pistol
You tagged Palm Pistol as non-notable in October 2014. I've removed the tag because it looks notable enough to me. Feel free to AfD it if you still think it's not notable. Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Webley-Fosbery Automatic Revolver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Maltese Falcon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Raven deal
I do not think the info is on googlebooks. That source is an audiobook. Its on the CD, IIRC.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! Not sure what the Raven deal is. Can you give me a link? Rezin (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Raven Arms article, one of the sources about forensics. (Although I don't believe Roy is quoted in there) I do know Ayoob has written a favorable review on the Raven but that was in the 90s. Yeah I guess I need to tone down my rhetoric a bit. I forget not everyone speaks the way I do or gets it. Thanks for picking up the slack on the firearms project. I appreciate it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I don't know if I'll ever be able to find that. More recently he's warned about the lack of a secure firing pin. As for the other, well, I guess we all have to talk like we're at a ladies' tea party. Rezin (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I have a hard copy of it in either Guns, American Handgunner or maybe even a pre-95 issue of G&A. He really just said that they were reliable, not that they were particularly well-made.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whew - those are probably a lot easier to search through than audiobooks. Rezin (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Proxy
On matters which I am not permitted to speak in connection with the Firearms Project: you have my proxy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the vote of confidence. Proxies are strongly discouraged. Luckily there's nothing too contentious these days. Rezin (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I second that vote of confidence... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

MP-40
I do not have time to work on that one to bring it to GA, but I cleaned out the web sourcing and used de Quesada's book. Nothing too contentious in those edits anyway, however I purged som of the countries listed as they turned up nowhere in the sources i looked through.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I'd thought a lot more work was going to be required, but it looks like GA-worthy material now. Rezin (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Book of the Garand
Well, it took forever, but interlibrary loan finally delivered a copy of THE BOOK OF THE GARAND, and I'll now try to check out what you asked for.Saintonge235 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

AK-47 users section
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:AK-47 as part of your participation in Talk:AK-47. Kind regards 217.186.51.33 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)