—Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation of the Carcano '91, and I apologize for my delay in reply, delay because I only occasionally log into the .en 'pedia. I guess you have noticed that I'm enrolled in the wikimilitary project, so I can say about the FMJ bullet of the '91/38 whose was perhaps the mainstay of the well-known lack of preparadness of Italian army in WWII, whose I'm sure you understand fully (I have talked also with the few conscripts whose have the '91/38 as service rifles, mainly post-war, and they always are/was of the opinion that things in North africa and elsewhere will be much more dignified if the switch between the two marks was at least partially done); also, You say you do bear hunt, so I guess that you hunt in wooded or semi-wooded areas, perhaps hilly (that is, like the 90% or so of Italy's non-urban areas) so you can guess the how's and why's of Italians preferring precise, medium-range weapons. Again, thanks for your comment, and Buona Caccia ! (this is "good hunt ! in Italian :) ) dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self mostly: I post from the US EST timezone, and timestamps in history are universal GMT four hours "later".

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. noq (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 06:12, 15 September 2009 Cunard (removed speedy, the sources added by Malcolmxl5 prove that 
 this band passes WP:BAND)

 Talk:Springfield Armory M6 Scout 
 
 == Barrel length ==
 
 Barrel length on my factory Springfield M6 Scout is very close to 18 inches exact: 
 less than 1/16 inch over 18 inches. It is certainly shorter than 18.25 inch. 
 User:Naaman Brown 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 
 :Actually, my Blue Book of Gun Values lists it as 18 1/2 inches.  Most measurements 
 provided by manufacturers are approximate, but what matters here is what's verifiable.  
 Your measurement is a single sample, which might be shorter than typical, or your 
 means of measurement might be flawed.  At any rate, it's considered [[Wikipedia:No 
 original research | original research]], and not usable as a reference.  
 User: Fluzwup 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it is the rules and Fluzwup is following protocol but with all due respect, I find this amusing. Am I to believe that the Springfield Armory brand M6 Scout barrel is 18.25 inch (or is it 18 1/2 inch) because citable published sources say so even though direct measurement shows far less than 18 1/16 inch? Factory tolerances do not vary by more than a few thousandths, and commercial yardsticks are certainly not off by one quarter to one half inch out of eighteen. It's not just my M6 Scout: measurement of a Springfield Armory M6 Scout at my local dealer matches my factory original, just a hair over 18 inches. Not 18.25 inches, not 18 1/2 inches but closer to 18 1/32 inches using the official ATF guidelines for measuring barrel length. I consider the two actual guns more verifiable and reliable than published sources which contradict physical evidence.

Heaven forbid that someone take the Blue Book of Gun Values barrel length seriously, recrown a damaged M6 muzzle, remove more than 1/32 inch and get caught by ATF, because ATF goes by physical measurements, not by published sources, and ATF takes their original research seriously. (added 03:46, 18 September 2009 Naaman Brown) Actually, the reaction of ATF would depend on circumstances: if you contacted an ATF compliance inspector over a short barrel shotgun, he or she would recommend immediately giving the barrel to a gunsmith to add a permanent extension to legal length (OR: I know this from an individual who bought a surplus shotgun at a police auction and discovered it was described as 18" but actually shorter); if an ATF enforcement agent got an allegation you had a SBS, it could justify breaking your backdoor down with a battering ram between sundown and 10:00pm at night (ATF's idea of "knock service, daytime search").Naaman Brown (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An edit was made to the Ken Ballew Raid article started by me:

 (cur | prev)  00:28, 21 March 2010 67.224.67.222 (talk) (17,670 bytes) (Incorrect place name - it is 
  "Silver Spring, Maryland", not "Silver Springs".) (undo) 

It is amazing how an editor (me) can cut-and-paste a quote from a court document naming Silver Spring, Maryland and still type Silver Springs in the lede. Or maybe not:

 Revision history of Silver Springs, Maryland (redirect)
 (cur | prev) 12:22, 23 August 2004 Tcr25 (talk | contribs) m (set up redirect to Silver Spring, Maryland)

The repetition of common errors like "Silver Springs" for "Silver Spring" undermines the credibility of WP as a source (even if x numbers of newspapers and magazine articles out of a total of y make the same mistake, the goal of Wikipedia is to be a reliable resource even tho' relying on fallible editors). I wanted to offer a belated thanks for correcting my brain fart, but IP 67.224.67.222 turns out to be a Single Purpose Account (SPA) with one (correct) edit to a controversial subject. Isn't that an automatic red flag? Dread SPA on a controversy? Naaman Brown (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, I did library research on various subjects (telescopy, astronomy, microscopy, Poe, Bradbury, gun control, etc.) by using the public library's copy of Readers Guide to Periodical Literature and its extensive collection of periodical literature--loose current issues boxed, and bound volumes by year going back to the 1920s. Many WP editors like to challenge anything that cannot be found through Google and cited with a URL. There are research resources beyond the Internet, a galaxy of knowledge without a citable URL, and facts that cannot be found through Goggle. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing NFA articles to bring the terminology in line with that officially used by the ATF. "NFA firearm" not Title II weapon, "Class 2 license" not Class-II, attempting to clarify a cloudy issue.

I felt like making this comment in Talk, but felt it was too much like editorializing, so I have made it here instead:

Between 1934 and 1986 there were approx. 128,000 machine guns entered in the NFA Registry as eligible for transfer to civilian owners. By all accounts, criminal involvement of registered NFA machine guns has been practically non-existant; perhaps five or six deaths, only one criminal homicide (murder) and that by a police officer with a private registered MG. Machine guns recovered from crime in the 1980s were illegal: smuggled in with drugs, stolen or bribed from military or police, or illegally manufactured. The response of the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the problem of illegal machine guns, to outlaw future legal registrations, did not solve the problem of illegal machineguns but has entrenched opposition to future gun control measures. It is like banning legal drugs because you cannot control illegal drugs, or trying to control prostitution by putting a freeze on marriage licenses. Some gun control advocates have pointed to the NFA as a successful gun control law: a lawabiding citizen could legally register a machinegun and there was no criminal use of the registered guns. What could a gun owner object to, besides the inconvenience and expense of the NFA registration process? Well, the Hughes Amendment demonstrates that acceptance of registration leads eventually to bans. Laws like the Hughes Amendment do little to address the illicit traffic in small arms by gun runners, but they do trigger knee-jerk reaction by gun owners against gun control proposals in general.

All this could be cited with verifiable sources (Kates, Kleck, Wright, etc.) but I don't see how it could be done without being editorializing anyway. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In many parts of the world, "petrol" is applied to petroleum products in general while "gasoline" is a specific product. UK uses "parafin" to name what is known in the US as "kerosene"; in the US "parafin" is a solid wax used for candles. The Haynes automotive manuals contain a glossary to disambiguate terms: the instructions to clean and degrease car parts with parafin can be puzzling if you skip reading the glossary. "Petrol bombs" are often made with used motor oil with a kerosene or fuel oil igniter to stick to armored vehicles and burn generating lingering smoke, not always with gasoline which can be in short supply in wartime. Where German war records indicate corpses were cremated with "petrol", the "petrol" used was waste oil retained when vehicle motor oil was changed. This is an English language encyclopedia not a UK/British specific encyclopedia and we do have visitors who read English who are not British. Or should we do like the Haynes manual and include a glossary. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plugging my veascii.com chart in here to test the screen font.
┌───┤ANSI ASCII and PC Screen Char├─┐
│ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F │
│32  ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 2
│48 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? 3
│64 @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O 4
│80 P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ 5
│96 ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o 6
112 p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ⌂ 7
128 Ç ü é â ä à å ç ê ë è ï î ì Ä Å 8
144 É æ Æ ô ö ò û ù ÿ Ö Ü ¢ £ ¥ ₧ ƒ 9
160 á í ó ú ñ Ñ ª º ¿ ⌐ ¬ ½ ¼ ¡ « » A
176 ░ ▒ ▓ │ ┤ ╡ ╢ ╖ ╕ ╣ ║ ╗ ╝ ╜ ╛ ┐ B
192 └ ┴ ┬ ├ ─ ┼ ╞ ╟ ╚ ╔ ╩ ╦ ╠ ═ ╬ ╧ C
208 ╨ ╤ ╥ ╙ ╘ ╒ ╓ ╫ ╪ ┘ ┌ █ ▄ ▌ ▐ ▀ D
224 α ß Γ π Σ σ µ τ Φ Θ Ω δ ∞ φ ε ∩ E
240 ≡ ± ≥ ≤ ⌠ ⌡ ÷ ≈ ° ∙ · √ ⁿ ² ■ F
└───0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5─┘

┌───┤ANSI ASCII and PC Screen Char├─┐
│   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F │
│32   ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 2
│48 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? 3
│64 @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O 4
│80 P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ 5
│96 ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o 6
112 p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ⌂ 7
128 Ç ü é â ä à å ç ê ë è ï î ì Ä Å 8
144 É æ Æ ô ö ò û ù ÿ Ö Ü ¢ £ ¥ ₧ ƒ 9
160 á í ó ú ñ Ñ ª º ¿ ⌐ ¬ ½ ¼ ¡ « » A
176 ░ ▒ ▓ │ ┤ ╡ ╢ ╖ ╕ ╣ ║ ╗ ╝ ╜ ╛ ┐ B
192 └ ┴ ┬ ├ ─ ┼ ╞ ╟ ╚ ╔ ╩ ╦ ╠ ═ ╬ ╧ C
208 ╨ ╤ ╥ ╙ ╘ ╒ ╓ ╫ ╪ ┘ ┌ █ ▄ ▌ ▐ ▀ D
224 α ß Γ π Σ σ µ τ Φ Θ Ω δ ∞ φ ε ∩ E
240 ≡ ± ≥ ≤ ⌠ ⌡ ÷ ≈ ° ∙ · √ ⁿ ² ■   F
└───0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5─┘  

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.95.125 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC) oops that was me, talking to myself. again. my grandson accuses me of having old timer's disease.[reply]

Thanks for your contributions from the Gollmar book! The article really needs some sound sources. --Sift&Winnow 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Naaman, I was the last person to do a major edit to the PCX page and I've been responding to your questions. Just wanted to say I agree with most of what you say. I'd like to suggest that you change the page as your questions have indicated, I feel that you would produce a better balanced version of the page than me. 83.216.149.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

(When I was staff scriptomaniac for the local Mensa group newspaper, the staff curmudgeon John K. Evans of the San Diego group labelled me a "bleeding heart liberal"; is getting labelled a "right wing vandal" a promotion or demotion?)

I noted these two responses on other subjects at User_talk:Hipocrite to BC aka CallmeBC aka IP 209.6.39.87 (the editor who answered me with insults and insinuations):

Er, I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with the obviously banned user talking at me on my talk page.... Hipocrite (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
....as an indefinitely blocked user you are restricted to your own talk page. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: this edit summary. HA! Right on both parts... :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for posting that information on my page. I checked it out and decided to move on: I place several templates whenever I'm reading through wikipedia, and that's bound to make a few people hot under the collar. No sense in begrudging a fellow for his recalcitrance. bwmcmaste (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first thousand I earned in 1969 would buy what $8,309 would buy in today's money. I don't know whether to thank or curse the author of that template.

For the sale of his short story "The Colour Out of Space" to Amazing Stories magazine in 1927, H.P. Lovecraft received $25.00 ($439 adjusted for inflation). For his novel At the Mountains of Madness published by Astounding Stories in 1936, Lovecraft had the services of an agent for the first time in his career and was paid $550.00 ($12,076 adjusted for inflation).

Monthly income for an Old West cowboy was $25 to $40 a month ($848 to $1,356 adjusted for inflation) and a Colt revolver or Winchester rifle ordered from Sears would cost $12 ($407 adjusted for inflation) in the 1890s. (A cheap .38 pocket revolver in the same catalog could be had for less than $3 ($102 adjusted for inflation).)

Neat template. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Inflation

Snip plain text:
Anslinger stayed in his $18,500 a year ($125,535 in 2007 dollars) position
Using Inflation tool:
Anslinger stayed in his $18,500 a year ($126,814 in 2007) position
Anslinger stayed in his $18,500 a year ($186,343 today) position

(sorry, kid's found a new toy)

You eliminated the following information, citing undue emphasis for the lede:

The siege was directed by William S. Sessions, Director of the FBI, and his two top subordinates, Larry Potts and Floyd Clarke. Sessions was later fired by President Bill Clinton on July 19, 1993 after Sessions refused to resign in the wake of a scathing investigation report by the Justice Department on several ethics violations, which were unrelated to the Waco siege.^[1]

I tend to agree with this assessment, however I feel the information needs to be included somewhere in the article. Will you be finding a new place for it? Apostle12 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naaman,

I was looking at the article on the Fairness Doctrine and saw a statement that I believe is wrong:

This doctrine was officially introduced in 1981 under the FCC chairman, Mark Fowler.

If I read the history correctly, this language was added to the article by you 23:15, 26 January 2010. Mark Fowler opposed the Fairness Doctrine. Did you really mean to use the word: introduced? Thanks, Rosattin (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the history on Fairness Doctrine, the statement This doctrine was officially introduced in 1981 under the FCC chairman, Mark Fowler. was introduced 17:30, 15 March 2010 by Jacquelinereneelewis without comment.

My edit was 23:15, 26 January 2010 Naaman Brown (See also: Canadian equivalent) adding *Accurate News and Information Act Canadian equivalent

You might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jacquelinereneelewis Naaman Brown (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Obviously the procedure I used was wrong. I'll contact Jacquelinereneelewis and also try to determine where I went wrong. Thanks. Rosattin (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just to let you know that I have undone the deleted paragraph and moved it

You could of perhaps done this yourself and I wondered if there was a reason that you felt you should not have ?

If you are unwilling to undo other editors edits I fully understand but remember that the wiki policy includes "Be Bold

:¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I have been brazen in editing; other times, I prefer to discuss changes in Talk before editing. I read WP:Consensus policy as edit with summary in comment, then if there is a conflict, take it to Talk; however, some articles are so radioactive, I feel better to discuss changes in Talk to avoid conflict in the first place. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this was in respect to Talk:Waco Siege edits (note here because they get autoarchived)

 11:35, 27 May 2010 Naaman Brown (→Weapons section: shudda been moved not removed) 
 02:55, 27 May 2010 Cappadocian330 (weapons)

Hi

To avoid any possible edit wars, over style for a start, as it is not normal to allow lists such as the list of dead. To try and at least cut down on one problem can you list them in two, or better still three, colums so they do not make the article so long?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table in question was initially inserted by another user, then removed. I feel it does add important information to the article (a) questions constantly come up about the number of dead from the Waco Siege (74, 76, 82, 86, gave all been quoted in the media, (b) putting names on the dead is important, (c) the ethnic origin of each BD is important in a way because those who question the necessity of the deaths are accused of being "Aryan militia" supporting a "white supremacist group" and the diverse ethnicity of the BD certainly is not consustent with a white supremacist group. Ages are important too because many of Vernon Howell's "children" were obviously conceived betfore their mothers met VH. Whether that is too much data for a general encyclopedia article is another issue: perhaps the original editor should have included a link, but then linkable files are not permanent on the internet. 404.

A single column list of 76 lines is a lot of space to take up, mostly right aligned whitespace in the article. On the other hand, tables are not easy to format in any markup language. You have given me an excuse to learn some more Wiki Markup.

In the April 19, 1993 final assault, the Davidian dead included:

1. Katherine Andrade, 24, white, American
2. Chanel Andrade, 1, white, American
3. Jennifer Andrade, 19, white, American
4. George Bennett, 35, black, British
5. Susan Benta, 31, black, British
6. Mary Jean Borst, 49, white, American
7. Pablo Cohen, 38, white, Israeli
8. Abedowalo Davies, 30, black, British
9. Shari Doyle, 18, white, American
10. Beverly Elliot, 30, black, British
11. Yvette Fagan, 32, black, British
12. Doris Fagan, 51, black, British
13. Lisa Marie Farris, 24, white, American
14. Raymond Friesen, 76, white, Canadian
15. Sandra Hardial, 27, black, British
16. Zilla Henry, 55, black, British
17. Vanessa Henry, 19, black, British
18. Phillip Henry, 22, black, British
19. Paulina Henry, 24, black, British
20. Stephen Henry, 26, black, British
21. Diana Henry, 28, black, British
22. Novellette Hipsman, 36, black, Canadian
23. Floyd Houtman, 61, black, American
24. Sherri Jewell, 43, Asian, American
25. David M. Jones, 38, white, American
26. David Koresh, 33, white, American
27. Rachel Koresh, 24, white, American
28. Cyrus Koresh, 8, white, American
29. Star Koresh, 6, white, American
30. Bobbie Lane Koresh, 2, white, American
31. Jeffery Little, 32, white, American
32. Nicole Gent Little, 24, white, Australian, pregnant
33. Dayland Gent, 3, white, American
34. Page Gent, 1, white, American
35. Livingston Malcolm, 26, black, British
36. Diane Martin, 41, black, British
37. Wayne Martin, Sr., 42, black, American
38. Lisa Martin, 13, black, American
39. Sheila Martin, Jr., 15, black, American
40. Anita Martin, 18, black, American
41. Wayne Martin, Jr., 20, black, American
42. Julliete Martinez, 30, Mexican American
43. Crystal Martinez, 3, Mexican American
44. Isaiah Martinez, 4, Mexican American
45. Joseph Martinez, 8, Mexican American
46. Abigail Martinez, 11, Mexican American
47. Audrey Martinez, 13, Mexican American
48. John-Mark McBean, 27, black, British
49. Bernadette Monbelly, 31, black, British
50. Rosemary Morrison, 29, black, British
51. Melissa Morrison, 6, black, British
52. Sonia Murray, 29, black, American
53. Theresa Nobrega, 48, black, British
54. James Riddle, 32, white, American
55. Rebecca Saipaia, 24, Asian, Filipino
56. Steve Schneider, 43, white, American
57. Judy Schneider, 41, white, American
58. Mayanah Schneider, 2, white, American
59. Clifford Sellors, 33, white, British
60. Scott Kojiro Sonobe, 35, Asian, American
61. Floracita Sonobe, 34, Asian, Filipino
62. Gregory Summers, 28, white, American
63. Aisha Gyrfas Summers, 17, white, Australian, pregnant
64. Startle Summers, 1, white, American
65. Lorraine Sylvia, 40, white, American
66. Rachel Sylvia, 12, white, American
67. Hollywood Sylvia, 1, white, American
68. Michelle Jones Thibodeau, 18, white, American
69. Serenity Jones, 4, white, American
70. Chica Jones, 2, white, American
71. Little One Jones, 2, white, American
72. Neal Vaega, 38, Somoan, New Zealander
73. Margarida Vaega, 47, Asian, New Zealander
74. Mark H. Wendell, 40, Asian, American

(No government agents were wounded or killed.)

or you can use this format

I prefer that as it doesnt detract from the feel of the article and is quite inobtrusive :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Good job m8 - looks much better now

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edit here. Usually people only notify one when they disagree. You did well. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that kind word.--John Foxe (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you are plunging in with edits on the Race and intelligence article, which was the subject of an Arbitration Committee case (along with related articles) and is still subject to active arbitration sanctions. I look forward to your participation in the clean-up of the article, as I see you are a much more experienced Wikipedian than I am, used to working on articles on controversial subjects. I'll be working on updating source lists for that article and related articles this weekend, and I encourage you to suggest other sources (through comment page on each individual source list) that you are aware of so that I'm up to speed with the best literature on the subject. See you on the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily, my meager contribution on this subject is from my encounter with the 1995 JEL book review of The Bell Curve. I think the problems with that book are: first, it was not submitted to peer review; second, the primary author Herrnstein died leaving the coauthor Murray responsible for explaining problems that would have been caught by a good prepublication vetting; and third, most commentaries were commenting on reactions to the book based on what had been said or written about it. The JEL review was qualified authors who actually read the book, rather than the usual commentators who have read commentary or editorials about it and are reacting to what was said about the book, rather than what was said in the book.

Secondarily and not specific to subject, if I am browsing and encounter footnotes with bracketed number links (no text) that look like this:

11.^ See: [4] PDF.

which I see as useless, I often follow the links and edit the footnote to link with blue bibliographic cite style text that looks like this:

11.^ See: Ulric Neisser (Chair) et al. (1996) "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns", American Psychologist, 51(2), pages 77-101. PDF.

I do this because (a) links change, such as when a website gets rearranged or the document gets retitled: you can search on author, title, publication and often find a moved article, but a dead link alone is often useless; and (b) it is a PITA to click a link to start a long download then at the end discover you have that document already.

Thanks for the tip about footnote editing. What you suggest is indeed more user-friendly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your reply to my Haruna comment here, thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

offending photo (taken my me) replaced with one clearly marked Public Domain. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... thanks for the note. Rest assured, no offence was taken; you made a valid point. Nevertheless, I appreciate that you took the time to follow up. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Spontaneous Combustion (bluerock band) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fumitol|talk|cont 03:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the wrong notification template has been used here. The articles has been nominated for deletion at a deletion discussion here. Please make any comments you have about this on that page. Please be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and refrain from arguing about the existence of other articles justifying this one. noq (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i really dnt remember if it was you that posted it but with the ed gein case he was only convicted of the 2 murders and the rest were never proven to have been him but that does not nessicarily mean that he didnt kill the others. and as far as the grave robbing goes the graves that he did dig up from what i have read there was nothing missing from them. there was also the numours shrunken heads in his shed that were never identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrittain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to budget considerations, Gein was tried and convicted only for the murder of Mrs Worden, even though Mrs. Hogan's remains were found in Gein's home too. Robert H. Gollmar was the judge when Gein was finally declared fit for trial in 1968, and later wrote a book on the subject (Edward Gein, Pinnacle Books, 1981). Gein admitted to opening nine to eleven graves in the Plainfield cemetery alone. The police went out and opened a sample of three graves identified by Gein. Joe Wilimovsky of the state lab and Deputy Arnie Fritz found them exactly as he described: in one the casket was empty, in another a pry bar had been lost and entry had failed, and in the third Gein had removed the body but returned parts. Opening all the graves identified by Gein was considered unnecessary. The mood of the community was against the idea. (Wilimovsky noted that the caskets were placed in wooden boxes and from the top of the boxes to the surface was no more than knee-heighth, about two feet deep.) -- Naaman Brown (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The scattered remains of an estimated fifteen bodies were found at the farmhouse when Gein was eventually arrested, but he could not remember how many murders he had actually committed. The discovery of these Gothic horrors sent shock waves throughout Eisenhower-era America. In Wisconsin itself, Gein quickly entered local folklore. Within weeks of his arrest, macabre Jokes called "Geiners" became a statewide craze. The country as a whole learned about Gein in December 1957, when both Life and Time magazines ran features on his "house of horrors." http://www.houseofhorrors.com/gein.htm

check it out very helpful maybe you could use some of the information

Dbrittain (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [1] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NB. Angela Corey decides when and what discovery evidence to give to O'Mara. We don't know that all the FBI interviews were handed over yet, so, we don't know if the FBI even interviewed Witness 9. There is also no mention of conclusions made by the FBI as a result of their investigation — that may be telling us that Corey hasn't handed those pieces of evidence over to O'Mara yet. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The link you recently added "Duncannumbers" appears to be a dead link. Can you confirm and if necessary revise? Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I notice that the article still contains citations to cnsnews.com including the one in your recent edit. I don't believe this is a WP:RS and I think that more reliable sources should be found for all such content and if none are available that the non-RS content should be edited out, instance by instance. Your thoughts?'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one of a few editors with more than 1 edit to Jack tales, I urge you to please review Talk:Jack tales#Merge discussion for merger discussion of Jack (hero) and Jack tales.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Smuggling of firearms into Mexico may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thank you for your edits on the Concealed Carry article. I understand and sympathize regarding the word permit vs license. Obviously there is a disagreement between editors here but we can't edit war to solve it. Please obtain consensus on the talk page before making your changes on the actual page. Metalurgist has a topic there. As a notice, you are at 2RR regarding this topic. If you revert again you will be at 3RR and that's generally a bright red line for a block. Let's not go there. I'll see you on the talk and you guys can hash it out there and once you figure it all out and gain consensus we can make the changes - the correct, polite and Wikipedia way. Thanks much. See you on the talk. Look forward to working with you. I will watch your page for your response here or on the Concealed Carry page so we can keep our conversations together. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk:Concealed carry in the United States, Permit vs License.--Naaman Brown (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing exists despite the source saying otherwise. All military issued weapons are chambered for 5.56x45 the M16 and M16A2 are examples of this. Since the source states something false I propose it is removed and just say the boy was shot with a M16 not a .223 M16 which is verifiably false.--Youngdrake (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¿It was "verifiably false" when the U.S. Marshal Service told the US Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, about the Marshals' weapons deployed at Ruby Ridge: "In preparation for the mission, the marshals had acquired three .223 caliber M16 rifles from the Spokane office. ... Thereafter, Degan shipped a .223 caliber M16A2 Colt Carbine, a "sniper" rifle, a shotgun, and a "suppressed" 9mm NATO Colt Carbine from a display to Spokane. ..." (sourced by the DOJ OPR to US Marshal Art Roderick: Roderick Trial Testimony, May 20, 1993, at 117, 119, 122; Roderick Sworn Statement (draft), at 19)?

Also in discussing the autopsy of Sammy Weaver by Dr. Charles R. Lindholm, the DOJ OPR Report 10 June 1994 notes: "Degan’s M16 rifle fires a .223 caliber round." (The issue was what kind of bullet caused the injury to Sammy Weaver's arm.) So US Marshals didn't know what caliber weapons are issued to them in 1992 and the trial testimony and forensics referred to a thing that did not exist?

Local police are issued AR-15, M16 and M4 patrol rifles (mostly semi-auto only). Ammo for practice and for duty is purchased at gun dealers who have police/sheriff contracts including a Class III dealer at the county seat. I have been to that shop several times as a civilian customer. Commercial .223 Remington 55gr FMJ cartidges are treated as interchangable with 5.56x45mm NATO 55gr FMJ cartridges. If I tried to argue at the shop that they were different, I would be greeted with rolled eyes. I have shot my son's AR M4 semi-auto replica in the local gun club's modern military matches using both commercial .223 Remington ammunition and military surplus 5.56x45mm from Lake City arsenal. Within the traditional FMJ 55gr bullet weight, .223 Remington/5.56x45mmNATO is a distinction with no measurable difference in the cartridges.

Beginning in the 1960s the Colt AR-15 was marketed to civilian and police markets as a .223 Remington caliber firearm. The US Marshal Service in 1992 used the designation of .223. Local law enforcement agencies who use M16, M4, AR-15 patrol rifles refer to them as .223 and do not use the military NATO designation 5.56x45mm. If you research the development history, the designs of the .224 Springfield and .222 Remington Magnum were merged to create the .223 Remington as a military round, which was then offered as a commercial cartridge, before the military designation was standardized as 5.56x45mm NATO.

While 5.56x45mm NATO designation on a barrel today implies the chamber throat dimensions and rates of twist are optimized for bullets heavier than 55gr, you cannot bet on that. In fact, I would verify chamber throat dimensions and rate of twist on any barrel marked 5.56x45mm or .223 Remington before selecting ammunition for it. There is a huge amount of overlap in dimensions on barrels out in the field, both in commercial arms and in military arms. While commercial bolt action rifles in .223 Remington are often optimized for 45gr to 55gr varmint bullets, some commercial rifles in .223 Remington are also made for hunting the smaller deer species with 70gr to 90gr medium game bullets. Military origin semi-auto rifles marked .223 Remington for import for sporting purposes also may have 5.56x45mm dimensions.

I think declaring there were no .223 M16s is a pedantic distinction w/o a real difference, especially for M16s in Federal Law Enforcement use in 1992. --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from the contributions that this is Mr. Pacione, but I don't see any evidence that any of those accounts have been banned, or even blocked. Can you point me to something that shows that? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[I am surprised he hasn't been banned. My mistake. I replaced "banned" with "frequently warned disruptive editor". Checking history, 28 May 2006 when he was editing as user NickolausPacione, he was warned if he continued, he would be blocked. As Np1976 he was warned on 20 Jan 2014 to stop his disruptive editing and if he continued he may be blocked; after all his edits were reverted in that spree he stopped editing as Np1976. He returned as Plagiarismwatcher316 on 12 Sep 2014, incurred the wrath of XLinkbot and quit editing after 13 Sep 2014. He has later returned using his IP. He engages in disruptive, ungrammatical, poorly sourced attacks on his "rivals" in the horror genre and shamelessly spams himself. When warned if he continues he will be banned/blocked, he stops, then returns under a different name or as an IP editor. Others who do that get banned. Again, I am surprised Pacione has not been banned. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked Unclefossil for the personal attack on his talk page, and the other accounts as sockpuppets. Banning is something different, see WP:BAN. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out on its Talk page the analogy that explained why these were called pocket-class ships. (Now I need to figure out how to update the article to properly cite it.) It was quite vexing to read something along the lines of '... and that's why they were called pocket ships.' when no explanation was provided. LOL Dhugot (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your recent edit at Ruby Ridge. I agree, redacted versus unredacted is a simplistic dichotomy. In reality, the very first release, captured by the PDFs, is very highly redacted, and the "final" version is largely unredacted, but still with some missing material, because some of the initial redactions were never filled in. Since I am not an expert on the history of these documents, so keep looking in so I get this correct. Bottom line, thanks for the attention (and encouragement to continue, esp. after the "under construction" work on the sources is done, within the week or so), and I'll keep the edit, though probably try to expand it so the differences between the versions is clearer. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your recent edit to the article Cruiser did not have a source attached. For now, it has not been reverted as I'm sure it's a worthwhile addition, based on the content and your experience. But you do know that added content needs to be sourced. Can you please add one, or note any current sources in the article that support the additions? Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 12:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:RubyRidgeSniperSketch 9-1-92.GIF

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.