Welcome!

Hello, Francis Flinch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Shotmenot 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use references whenever possible. See 6.5_x_47_Lapua as an example. Your efforts are commendable and I would hate to see them washed away for lack of references. Thanks, btw! --Crimson30 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the third developer of the cheytac 408 for a wrong reason. Let me put it this way. Gordon helped them make a .408 gibbs possible as a cartridge, did all the prototyping, taught Wordman how to do it, then they went with modified commercial parts and cut him out of the "official history of the .408 as written by Wordman". I didn't put THAT in because that's mudslinging (that I didn't want to start on a wiki page) but it's TRUE FACT.

I'm partners with Gordon Robertson in various projects and I've seen the drawings, designs, CAD files and all that he kept copies of when he did that work with him as well as the record of their involvement as well as him telling me about the things he was doing for Wordman at the time. Sorting the Gibbs into 408 was only partially done by who you have listed in the article and sorting the sort of rifle that would work (without a rifle to fire the cartridge it's not much use is it?) for intended purpose was done by Gordon, then Wordman decided to use all of the development work done by Gordon, find similar commercial parts to use that he modified based on Gordon's prototyping work to cut him out and claim the 408 was his invention. I can document this all. Wordman is, in my opinion, a charlatan. That's my opinion, it is not slander as I am welcome to my own opinion based on past histories of a number of people that worked on projects "with him" to "help him out and get started" and found themselves discounted and cut out after he had used them for his purposes. I can also document in some of these instances he even never paid them for contracted work. Might be your hero but he isn't mine.

You can say what you want about my edit but without Gordon's work there would be no Cheytac 408 as exists today so I think it's relevant as hell, therefore I put it in there, but if this is your little internet fiefdom, then this is just one more example of how wikis aren't reliable resources. You cut out one of the three people that developed the 408 because you didn't think it was relevant?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

That's your call and I won't fight you over it because a number of smiths in the USA know the real story. I'm in the firearms manufacturing business and a gunsmith, you're a wiki editor, I guess. What are your credentials as a firearms historian? You're no William Harding or S.R. Truesdell, thats for sure. Look them up, I'm on speaking terms with the former, then look in the mirror if you like or don't if it'd chagrin you that you made a mistake and you're an amateur here.

Regards,

Thomas

Machinist, Gunsmith, Manufacturer, and well acquainted with the real story of how the 408 got started. Can't have more impeccable references than mine on this one.

I won't get in an edit war with you because I don't consider wiki a reliable resource anyway as it's not properly peer reviewed and it would be pointless, but if you wish to explain yourself to me, feel free to do so on my talk page.

Who are you to be "The God of the .408 Wikipedia Entry"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.20.43 (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note. Cartridge was wordman's, more or less, GR didn't design the cartridge, but they had a cartridge and there wasn't any action on the market that suited the cartridge to be used in a rifle of the sort they wanted it produced in. A cartridge with no rifles to shoot it (that would give it an advantage over .50BMG and the Lapuas) is worthless. People would have stuck to buying BMGs and Lapuas like they were and still are for the most part.The fact that CheyTac was anti-civilian ownership of their rifles in actual business for a long time would have probably left it a low selling oddity even more so than it is today. Offering hobbled versions of rifles to civilians vs the ones you sell to the military doesn't warm the hearts of people spending thousands of dollars on a rifle. Cheytac did that for up until a very few months ago and permanently poisoned their own well of potential US civilian customers because people have long memories.

You perhaps have a point but I have one too. Spose we agree to disagree on whether or not it's relevant in the history of how the .408 came to be a viable commercial cartridge (which it very well wouldn't have without GR's prototyping work in MY opinion). It would have stayed a daydream of Wordman and Doc or a stillborn wildcat, as likely as not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.20.43 (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to the 7.92x57 mm Mauser article. It was struggling for quite a while, and now it's looking better and better. You've added a lot of info and references. Great stuff. Geoff B 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your expansion of the Sako TRG article was quite impressive - you seem to know quite a lot about the subject! Due to this, I want to award you with my own MoRsE medal! --MoRsE 07:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The
MoRsE
medal
	in Bronze with a green ribbon has been awarded Francis Flinch on May 7, 2007 for the work with the article Sako TRG

I took the liberty of editing away a mouse pointer from the image 8 x 57 I.jpg. --Ifrit 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Schmidt & Bender 10x42 PMII (is still produced) is a 300 m fixed parallax telescopic sight. They also produced 6x42 PMII telescopic sights. Specifications for the 10x42 PMII can be found at Schmidt & Bender PM II. I suspect that the Hensoldt (now sold under the Zeiss Optronics brand - Zeiss: Telescopic sights for handheld weapons) and Austrian Kahles fixed 6x42 military models often mounted on Steyr SSG 69 sniper rifles also are 300 m fixed parallax scopes.

OK, I put in a reference linked to the PM II specs, that covers the 300m fixed parallax.

I am always rather careful with ‘focus’ and ‘side focus’ since side parallax adjustments are often confused with the actual focusing adjusment controls on telescopic sights. Focusing (meaning getting a sharp image of the target picture and reticle) a scope is done on the ocular end. This focusing adjustment control, found on almost every telescopic sight, has nothing to do with bringing the target picture and reticle crosshairs in one optical plane avoiding parallax aiming errors. Francis Flinch 16:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the "side focus" term was taken directly from BSA'S website (which I picked because they make 7.5 yard AO scopes, the shortest range I was able to find when I was looking). On that page they refer to adjustment as "side wheel focus" and "side wheel parallax adjustment"; while "focus" is confusing, it's not technically incorrect, since you are "focusing" the reticle image out to a given distance. Maybe there should be a section on "adjustments", wherein we can cover ocular focus, parallax focus, windage and elevation, magnification, bullet drop compensation (which can be a function of elevation or separate), and adjustable and "drooper" bases. scot 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the BSA website. It looks to me like they sell telescopic sights, made in one of the huge Asian optics plants where you can get OEM products stamped with anything you can imagine on. The telescopic sights of Schmidt and Bender, U.S. Optics (S&B and USO only produce high end telescopic sights) or Zeiss play in a different league. For about 10 to 15 times the price of a BSA it is not unreasonable to expect near optical and mechanical perfection, quality control, reliability, durability and hassle free after sales service.

Yes, BSA sells inexpensive, made in China stuff, but they also offer a fairly wide range of products, and have good information on their website, which makes them a good reference. And while Zeiss might might a far better riflescope in general, it'd be awfully silly to mount a $1000 scope on a $50 airgun for shooting at 10 meters or less--especially given that Zeiss doesn't make a scope suitable for that task. Better a cheap tool that fits the task than an expensive one that doesn't.

I think that a term like "side wheel parallax adjustment" or “parallax control” describes the function of such a turret-wheel or AO ring quite well. I know the term “side wheel focus” is often used by telescopic sight manufacturers, but I think it causes avoidable confusion.

Perhaps, but all we can do is describe the state things and try to explain them. I don't know about you, but unfortunately no one has decided to let me be in charge. If they had, there'd be a whole lot more mid-range, compact, fixed power scopes with rangefinding reticles out there...

I liked your adjustments section idea, so I added it with a hopefully illustrative picture. Your addition on adjustable mounts reminded me of old hunting rifles which had ‘mounts with a support’, the support being the adjustable part. In the old days (wire) reticles were not centered if the telescopic sight was adjusted for elevation or windage. This often looked odd and was a reason to align things by manipulating the mount to obtain a nice looking centered reticle picture. A contemporary user of external adjustments is the Dutch Army. They use 3.4x Elcan telescopic sights on their Diemaco assault rifles, etc. Elevation adjustments are made via a horizontal thumbwheel at the rear of the integrated mount. This features a bullet drop compensator calibrated from 200 to 800m in 100m increments. This mount is not dirty environment and rough handling proof, so Elcans are unpopular with Dutch soldiers. On the EAW website you can find information on European-style mounting systems. Francis Flinch 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of the old Unertl target scopes, like this: http://www.alexweb.net/unertl/16171.jpg, and here's a good picture of the mounts http://www.alexweb.net/unertl/q2.jpg One ring acts as a shock absorber with a spring to return the scope to position, and the other has click adjustments to position the scope in the rings. But now that you mention it, lots of modern red dot scopes use external adjustments, especially the open type; the reflector and reticle emitter are fixed to a rail, and the rail is moved relative to the mount. One of the early Aimpoints I have (it's about a 15mm tube variety) even goes so far as to have horizontal adjustments at one end of the mount, and vertical at the other. As far as the Elcan goes, I would expect a good adjustable base design to be just as solid as an adjustable rear sight--like the M-16A2's range adjustable rear sight--so I'd guess that's an implementation issue, not a design issue. I still prefer the calibrated reticle, but then I prefer to eliminate moving parts whenever possible (see previous comment about fixed power scopes--I know everyone says variable power scopes are "just as good", but they're also by necessity bulkier, heavier, and more expensive for a given quality level--or lower quality for a given price point). scot 19:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variable power (zoom) telescopic sights almost always perform better at the low to medium power settings than they do at the highest settings. They have an optical "sweet spot" that can be determined by careful observation. A rule thumb for finding the sweet spot is lowest magnification + highest magnification / 2. For example, in a 3-12x variable this often occurs around (3+12)/2 = 7-8x. This is natural, since the entire design of a variable optic is a series of compromises. A zoom optic can not be optimized for any focal length and field of view, since it must be satisfactory over a wide range. The wider the zoom range, the greater the optical compromises that must be made. Fixed magnifications are the always the best choice if you can live with it. The internals of fixed focal length optical instruments can be better optically optimized, have fewer and have less complicated components. Extra optical elements introduce more transmission and resolution loss. In Europe expensive 4x32, 6x42, 10x42, 7x50 and 8x56 telescopic sights of modern design are offered by the major high end manufacturers. Lots of experienced (night) hunters still prefer them over the fashionable variable scopes, since the laws of physics determine that fixed optics will always offer a better more contrasty picture. With a building block mounting system a rifle can be adapted for several types of hunting by switching scopes.

A common photographers wisdom is that the best thing you can do to improve the image quality of any optical system is to put a lens hood on your objective and ocular to reduce/eliminate stray light. On (semi) professional SLR cameras you can close the ocular to eliminate light coming in "from the wrong side" and spoiling your picture. This could happen when you are using tripods etc. I have personally seen cheap photo lenses with hoods producing better pictures then Japanese and German noble glass without them. When the noble glass got their hoods attached their better quality of course became apparent. Francis Flinch 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going over the parallax section in telescopic sight, adding more details and references, and I was wondering if you could provide an example of a 300 yd/m fixed parallax scope, so I could track down a reference. scot 14:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Francis Flinch. I took the liberty of updating your file Image:10 m Air Rifle target.svg. I hope that is OK, and ask you to check if the proportions (and whatever) are correct. - Nabla 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for converting the target drawing to SVG format. If you like to make perfect drawings of ISSF targets look at http://www.issf-shooting.org/rules/english/2006/23_technical_2005_2nd.html. There you will find amongst other things everything you need to know concerning the official ISSF/IOC targets from 10 to 300 m. A thing that differs from the customary 10 m air rifle target is the Times-like font you used. The official targets use Arial-like fonts for the scoring ring values. Francis Flinch 10:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

font: OK, updated. I have left the font to be defined by default, now it is defined to be of the "arial" family. more targets: wow, that's a lot! I don't know much about that, the sport isn't very popular here in Portugal, so I only watch a couple of hours of it every 4 years, in the Olympics. Still, if those are useful here (are they?) then I'll include making them in my tasks, I'm no artist but these are relatively straightforward svg files, possible to do "by hand" to be very small (this one has only 2KB), and the instructions in the rules are quite clear to follow. It may take a while because I do a kind of "random walk" in my WP tasks, but I'll keep you posted. other versions: I see you uploaded a couple other versions, may I delete those? - Nabla 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete the other versions. I tried to upload the original 2D line drawing of the 10 m air rifle file in svg-format but somehow the exported svg-file looked garbled in Wikipedia. Most people are flabbergasted when they read the ISSF rules. Comprehensive rules are probably normal for every IOC approved event. Shooting is a niche sport in a lot of countries, so Portugal is no exception. I uploaded a target drawing of the 50 m rifle target - 50_m_Rifle_target.svg - at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_m_Rifle. In Inkscape it opened looking fine. Sadly the Arial type text got garbled again. I will upload it as a jpg - 50_m_Rifle_target_1.jpg - as well. So you can see the correct proportions. Francis Flinch 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Deleted: 50 m Rifle target.svg, 10 m Air Rifle Target.svg ("T", not "t"), and 10 m Air Rifle target 2.jpg. Skeet is relatively popular here (silver medal in 1976 Olympics, and a few more good performances I can't remember of) mainly because hunting is popular too (not that I apreciate it...) I have no idea what went wrong with Inkspace... I don' use it. I don't use an drawing software at all, a simple drawing like that (its all circles and a few characters) I face as if it was a computer program and coded it "by hand". A slower but produces a very "clean" file. Still *.svg is not yet very well supported so converting from/to it still causes a few seemingly random errors. I'll take on the other targets sometime later. - Nabla 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just occurred to me yesterday (while playing with the Bushnell 7x50 Marine binocs I got for my birthday), that the telescopic sight section on rangefinding reticles might be worth its own article, if for no other reason than that rangefinding reticles are used on other optics, such as said binoculars (which have a compass and 5 milliradian graduated reticle) and some other specialized items, such as golf rangefinding monoculars, which use the standardized height of the flag as the known size item. So what do you think--is there enough content in the rangefinding section to make a standalone article, and do I provide enough argument to justify pulling it out, and adding links from binoculars and monocular? scot 16:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a search on "rangefinder" and ran across Stadia (method). It needs some serious work (looks like the bulk of the article was copied from some other source), but covers rangefinding reticles and would be the logical place to put information on rangefinding reticles. scot 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of marine and military binoculars and other optics have mil reticles and lots of sailors, soldiers, surveyors, etc. are trained in the art of “milling”. Please note that mil-dot reticles have become fashionable and that most owners of mil-dot rifle scopes can not use them properly without the basic explanation offered in the telescopic sight article. For serious long-range shooters mil-dots are a passive/emergency range finding system. They normally prefer to use binoculars with built in laser rangefinders or if military snipers fear laserlight detection use triangulation with theodolites to establish the range to target. With very expensive mil-spec kit like the http://www.vectronix.ch/index.php?show=20 Leica/Vectronix VECTOR rangefinder binoculars this can be done quickly and much more accurately then by ‘milling’. Vector binoculars actually even have a mil reticle in case the laser unit fails or can not be used to avoid detection. For shooters, which normally do not have to range targets at 2000+ m with great accuracy, more affordable laser rangefinder binoculars and laser rangefinder monoculars which can range less far and accurate are offered. Francis Flinch 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reticle image from the S&B PMII you uploaded a couple months ago was contrary to my copyright. I removed it from the Telescopic sight page. Please remove the image from Wiki. Zak 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your query on my page. Zak 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall seeing a Swarovski 6x fixed power rifle scope with a 600 yard laser rangefinder at a Shot Show back in '97 and I think that was the first commercial laser rangefinding scope to hit the market. Here's an aritcle on it: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n10_v42/ai_20045306 scot 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reading, I see that they're talking about a variable power model--I could be mis-remembering, or it could be a different model. At any rate, laser rangefinding scopes have been around on the commercial market for a decade. scot 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and here's a picture of it: http://www.gunaccessories.com/Swarovski/LaserRangefindingScope/index.asp Looks just like I remembered (very odd looking due to the rangefinder) so I'm guessing I was confusing 600 yards with 6x power... scot 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Swarovski LRS 3-12x50 rifle scope at your URL's. To my surprise I could not find the LRS 3-12x50 at http://www.swarovskioptik.at/index.php?l=en&css=&nID=x434b76b737c887.28186349&c=produkte. Whatever the reason for this might be, your find still proves that this technology was available in 1997. The technology the SAM module offers seems to be more recent. At http://www.elcansportingoptics.com/home.php you can see someone already used CCD/LCD technology as found in viewfinders on camera’s in scopes. The ELCAN DigitalHunter Digital Rifle Scope series makes shooting almost a videogame. Optronics are nice until you are out of batteries or have an electronic bug. I mentioned the Swarovski LRS 3-12x50 in the article and renamed the section to “Optronic technologies”. If you have further relevant information feel free to edit the article. Francis Flinch 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't find the LRS in the current lineup, my guess is that it's been discontinued and the retailer I listed has back stock (it's not like $4k scopes just fly off the shelves). I haven't looked at the specs on the current models, but the LRS was very good technically (600 yards, +- 1 yard accuracy, 1500 readings per set of batteries) but quite hefty at over 40 oz; I'd expect current models to be cheaper (the LRS was $5k in 1997, so its current price is quite a bit cheaper) and lighter. scot 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments on my talk page. I'll likely be making changes accordingly, so if you have any response first I'd appreciate hearing from you. Gene Nygaard 19:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for improving the 8x60mm S article. I started that article, and I still follow it's progress. You made significant contributions to it and fixed several inaccuracies, for which I want to thank you. Keep up the good work! --Boris Barowski (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your addition of Zimbabwe to the list of Sako TRG rifle operators and put it in alphabetical order. The reference states Zimbabwe bought "light weapons and accessories therefore - sniper rifles and accessories" worth FIM 142.000 (€ 23.883) in 1999 from Finland. Can you provide a better reference that Zimbabwe bought Sako TRG rifles, since "sniper rifles and accessories" can also stand for other rifles and components exported by Finland? If so, did Zimbabwe buy TRG-21/22 or TRG-41/42 rifles and how many? Regarding the price of fully kitted out TRG sniper weapon systems (2007 prices range around € 4.000 - € 6.000) Sako will not have sold many TRG rifles to Zimbabwe.

Francis Flinch 09:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where I got in information from:

www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/FIN_99.pdf/download

There are several sites mentioning the same deal

http://www.defmin.fi/index.phtml?l=sv&s=174

http://www.nisat.org/Export_Reports/Finland%201999%20to%20the%20EU/1999%20annual%20to%20the%20EU.pdf

If you tell me "sniper rifle" does not mean "SNIPER RIFLE", I beg to differ.

I too was thinking of the costs and the quantities involved and they are likely to be very small - I agree with you there. The deal was in 1999 before the embargo. They way I see it if Finland is going to sell rifles to Zimbabwe, I cannot see the distinction between a sniper rifle and an assult rifle making much difference.

I did not specify the exact sniper rifle because that info is not given. If you know other "military sniper rifles" sold by Finland, please let me know.

I have seen (live with my own eyes) the police in Zimbabwe with AUG Styers which you don't see on the internet and other public records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempest II (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I mean “sniper rifle accessories” as stated in the EU source on what was exported in 1999 to Zimbabwe leaves room for questions and speculations. Accessories can mean stocks, bipods for sniper rifles, etc. Finnish companies/brandnames like Valmet and Tikka also produced precision shooting orientated rifles around 1999 that could be classified as sniper rifles, since there is no official exact definition on what rifles are (military or police) sniper rifles and what rifles are not. Sako for instance markets the TRG series as a “sharpshooting system”. TRG rifles are actually quite often used in civilian full bore target shooting events that have nothing to do with tactical shooting events, pseudo sniping or official service usage. I realize it must be hard to get concrete information on the internet on the service use of a probably small batch of Finnish made rifles in Zimbabwe.

Francis Flinch 18:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis, I just let a message for you on the CIP page. Just don't know where to put it, here there or on my user's page ?
--MDeby (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Françis, I see your touches on the articles here and there. Unfortunately I don't have much time at the moment to participate. If you feel I can provide you with some information, please do not hesitate to drop a message on my user's discussion page or anywhere else in the articles I edited in some way (thus watching them). Regards, --MDeby (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C.I.P. Hallo M.Flinch As student in Master 1, I'm writing a paper about the CIP. My first researches pointed me to wikipedia and to your article, I wanted to know what's your link to the CIP any where have found all your information to write this article. You would make a great pleasure by sending me your mail-adress at my mail address peter.stud@hotmail.com so that I could contact you for further questions. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.204.93 (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is more accurate assuming they use the same scope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecutnut (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your query on your page.--Francis Flinch (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C.I.P. Hallo M.Flinch As student in Master 1, I'm writing a paper about the CIP. My first researches pointed me to wikipedia and to your article, I wanted to know what's your link to the CIP any where have found all your information to write this article. You would make a great pleasure by sending me your mail-adress at my mail address peter.stud@hotmail.com so that I could contact you for further questions. Thanks a lot Peter Stud (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Tac Pro Shooting Center AI Brochure it states that the AI AW 26 inch barrel with the .308 winchester has a range of 1100 meters/1000 yards (the measurement is incorrect on the website). Does this mean that the bullet travels approximately 1100 meters/1000 yards before it becomes too weak and like becomes a poke to someone rather than a kill?

Because I'm hoping to shoot (when I get some experience, and more) at targets approximately 2000 yards/meters away. Thecutnut (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your query on your page.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

So it is possible to shoot and kill at 2000 + meters with a 7.62 x 51 mm calibre, but it would require a lot of skill and accuracy as well as the knowledge of the environment? And that the military uses other calibre's to make it easier when shooting correct? Thecutnut (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for helping me throughout the knowledge of firearms. In truth, I don't really study much (as you most likely saw in me) and I want to (and am forced to) know how to use a firearm for the military. If there are any books you think I should read (I do read books completely), then please suggest those to, overall thank you for your contributions, I may continue to ask them, as for my talk page, I will keep removing the answers when they get long, but I do save them. Thecutnut (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find an image of a tactical muzzle brake, but what does a tactical muzzle brake look like?

And what is the difference between a tactical and standard muzzle brake? Thecutnut (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to interject, in the firearms industry, "tactical" generally means "painted black and cool looking".  :) scot (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the damned "curving bullet" movie preview too many times in the past week, and I think a bit should go into the external ballistics article about it because gazillions of people are going to be thinking, "will that work? I think that the article should note that:

1. Horizontal movement at time of firing still gives you horizontally linear path 2. Crosswinds, or a bullet fired with the gun at a high velocity, will cause a curved path from the shooter's frame of reference 3. It is possible to curve a bullet, but only with a spinning bullet

Point 1 is a simple physics argument; with no external force, the projectile in motion will remain in motion in a straight line. Point 2 I think I have material for in P. O. Ackley's handbooks. As for point 3, this source shows how it can be done with a smoothbore, a round ball, and a bent barrel. What I don't have a source for is how projectiles from rifled guns curve to the side as the vertical velocity begins to rise, and the same effect kicks in. Any ideas on sourcing that? scot (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found some mention of canted sights in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, under "Ordnance" and "Sights". From "Sights": It was found that projectiles fired from a rifled gun deviated laterally from the line of Sights for fire owing to the axial spin of the projectile, and that if the r i fled spin were right-handed, as in the British service, the deviation was to the right. scot (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your query on your talk page.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything you said. In hunting, there's the vital-zone hit and the clean miss as the only two good outcomes--everything else is trouble, and BIG trouble on dangerous game. However, the objection I've read about high-speed soft-point .30+ cals on dangerous game has to do with underpenetration when encountering tough hides or large muscle mass. The high-speed Weatherby family (.30-378 through .378 WM) cartridges are most often accused, and the old-design A-Square Lion Load soft-point bullet was famous for failures (on lion, of course) for poor penetration. With underpenetration, even a vital-zone "hit" doesn't get to where you want it, and now you've got an angry animal.

Higher calibers/heavy, solid bullets have other advantages in the second (and third, and fourth...) shots, whether the animal is running away or at you: better penetration for a "Texas heart shot" if only the hindquarters are in view, and more likely to break shoulder or leg if that's hit on a hurried follow-up shot. John Pondoro Taylor came up with his knock-out values (based vaguely on his own experience)regarding how many seconds would the elephant stay down--allowing you a finishing shot--if you stunned him with a skull shot that missed the brain: bullet weight x caliber x speed/7000, so large, heavy bullets did better than fast ones.

True, all of this is probably more of a concern to the PH than the client, and nothing is more important than than a well executed first shot (with the right caliber-bullet combination for the animal and distance). Fun discussing things with you.--Icammd (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis ! Thanks for the upgrade :-) What would you think about putting the same kind of list on the CIP page too ? Unfortunalely I do not have much time for wiki at this time. If reading through the info I give you have questions, please don't hesitate. You can also contact me by e-mail. Regards, --Michel Deby (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAAMI pressure specs are reprinted in widely available sources such as reloading manuals which are published by SAAMI members. As such, the figures are not really third-party sources. And just because they are contained in books and not via a clickable link does not mean they are not validly sourced. American manufactured ammunition, which is by far the bulk of 10mm Auto ammunition produced, is made to SAAMI spec and not CIP spec, which makes the entry of CIP data in that article somewhat specious. I think the best solution is that articles should state the source of the pressure spec, i.e., CIP or SAAMI, for clarification.--Ana Nim (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, excellent work finding your way around that tricky Swiss legal wording. That site provides a wealth of useful images. Terrific. Koalorka (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to vectorize (make an svg version of) the .284 Winchester bullet, but I found some error concerning the alpha angle, it does not match to the size of the parts (trigonometry of a right triangle). Here a diagram showing the problem. --Tsaitgaist (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG versions of these drawings for other chamberings made by other people always came out garbeld or technically substandard. Since you are interested in this cartridge drawing, I will upload a better version in PNG format in the near future.--Francis Flinch (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did a miscalculation, I was wrong, the picture is right. No need to upload a better picture, I did the svg with exact measurements and will upload it. --85.178.50.106 (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your arrows or dashed axis lines. They are not (always) pointing in the same direction or the same as in the original JPG drawing. Since more people who tried to convert these drawings into SVG encountered similar problems, I suspect SVG is very hard to manipulate to get technical drawings understandable or right. I fired up my old C.I.P. numerical data to line drawing conversion program (this program does not work with modern operating systems and is not commercially available) and exported the result in PNG format. Wikipedians who said they are knowledgeable regarding technical drawing format preferences of Wikipedia assured me this yields smaller files compared to JPG and was regarded the best available graphics format option my program can produce by them. Please remind fire arms and their cartridges are dangerous items and I would not like people seeing incorrect technical drawings of potentially dangerous objects. Sadly the actual C.I.P. datasheets can not be used in Wikipedia since they are copyrighted. They do provide all relevant numerical data and drawings of hundreds of cartridges and their respective chambers. The C.I.P. datasheets are however intended for professionals who are knowledgeable like gunsmiths, engineers, etc.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not an exact copy of your drawing. I used qcad to generate the bullet with your measurements, and added the text and arrows with inkscape. If you mean H1/P2 are not in the saw direction, it's normal. I wished all arrows to be the same way. If it's a technical requirement, I will change this. Should the S line S be dashed ? I will try to vectorize some other of your bullet images, now that I know how to do it.--Tsaitgaist (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your drawing gets better though the lines are probably very hard to get correct. The lines coding and text in the drawing are not arbitrary and all have technical meanings. In the SVG the centre axis line coding still is incorrect. S, r1 min and r2 define the junction cone (look at the Delta L problem article to see why this important), and the S lines should be a dashed lines. "r1 min" has to be written like that, etc. If a cartridge drawing is exactly to scale showing it is a rebated rim cartridge, as the .284 Win. happens to be, is less important. That numerical values express that. These drawings do however have to be intelligible for professionals, who use the measurements for producing safe, C.I.P. compliant, ammunition and firearms chambers. Remind angles sometimes have to be broken down in arc minutes and arc seconds. The .284 Win. is not repreentative for most cartridges in that respect. --Francis Flinch (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the lines and precision. I did also the .30-06_Springfield. If there are corrections or enhancement to do, just tell me. With svg it's a matter of minutes. And this way I will do it the right way from beginning for the next bullets.--Tsaitgaist (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The .284 Win. SVG starts to look good. After looking at C.I.P. datasheets, it is funny to see a cartridge drawn to scale, but it gives Wikipedia readers a nice indication how the cartridge will look in reality. Look at P1 and R1 in the original drawing. These values are incorrect. The R1 (rim diameter) really is smaller than P1, making the .284 Win. a rebated rim cartridge. Besides this in technical drawings normally sans-serif fonts (Arial font family, etc.) are preferred.

If you start to convert these drawings in SVG pay meticulous attention to the numerical values stated in the original drawings.

The correctness of the stated numerical data is the most important part of these drawings and errors/typos could lead to very dangerous situations.

I always check the data against the latest official C.I.P. datasheets, but this C.I.P. data is currently not publicly available for free.

The .30-06 Springfield SVG drawing looked dimensionally quite correct compared to an actual fired .30-06 Springfield cartridge case I compared it with. Maybe yould can get closer to the original pointer-style (the lines) for H1, H2 and P1, P2. This expresses somewhat clearer the H and P values are datasets for the the cartridge neck and body diameters. Not all cartridges are of the rimless family and you will have to add a few other cartridge case subtypes. Read the Rim (firearms) article to see what I mean. Follow the links and you will find some of the mentioned cartridges articles already contain jpg drawings. For a belted cartidge example look for the 8 mm Remington Magnum.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected R1 and P1 on both drawing. I'm really sorry for that, I will take great care to not do this error again. For the dimensions I use your drawings, as I do not have access to C.I.P catalogue, so the svg has the right dimension, on a different scale. I also reversed H1 and P2 to have the same direction as your drawing. Is this what you meant by the pointer-style ? As for the font, I use Bitstream Vera Sans (Sans Serif). I do not use Arial because it is not a free font, it's mainly included in Microsoft Windows which I do not use, and it's not one of the rendered font by Wikipedia in the SVG. I also added 8_mm_Remington_Magnum --Tsaitgaist (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got the .284 Win. pointer-style right. I did not mean to use Arial as font. I meant to use a font that generally looks like Arial (Arial is essentially a variant of Helvetica) and saw on your SVG type faces link there are fine font options like Helvetica available. These sans-serif fonts are often used in technical drawings, because they are easy to read and resemble the old ISO norm technical drawing fonts used in the past century. I would draw and upload cartridge SVG's in an about 1,000 pixels (or larger) wide format (like the .30-06 Springfield SVG) to make the drawings easy to read on all kinds of monitors. The 8 mm Remington Magnum SVG looked almost as a vision test on my pro grade graphical monitor. It is not exceptional at all to see large technical drawings of small components (think watch movements, etc.).--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a viewport to the svg. This means that the drawing is still in mm (with the right dimensions, this is why it was small before), but is now rendered with 1000px width. As for the font, Bitstream is very similar to Helvetica (also mentioned in the article), and under a free licence. But actually when you look at the rendered png picture it uses a serif font (I don't know which one). Apparently wikipedia server misses the right font (I'm currently talking to technician). If you look at the svg itself (not the wiki rendered png) with the Bitstream font installed, you will see the similarity. Still trying to resolve the rendering matter. --Tsaitgaist (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 8 mm Rem. Mag. SVG looks much better. The .30-06 Spring. SVG P1 and P2 can be adapted like in the .284 Win. SVG. The 1,000 pixel width looks great for these drawings and also looked good on a HP LCD office monitor. You can change all your SVG drawings to that width. I looked at the Bitstream font and think it is a fine no nonsense font for technical drawings. No normal observer will notice the subtle differences between fonts like Bitstream, Arial or Helvetica. I hope the technician you contacted will find a solution for the font problem.--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please verify the [325_WSM] diagram ? From the dimensions, delta should be around 20 (measured on my drawing, and calculated). --Tsaitgaist (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up. C.I.P. says delta = 45°. This delta value is typical for all WSM cartridge family members (7 mm WSM, .270 WSM, .300 WSM and .325 WSM). The values for f = 0,36 and E = 3,35. The problem with the .325 WSM is the data used is preliminary, since it is a very recent cartridge design. I think your drawing will add up much better with these corrections.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With E = 3,35 delat is 45°. On the drawing E = 5,08. Are f and E the only different values ? --Tsaitgaist (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As said previously the .325 WSM values are preliminary and the E = 5,08 in the JPG must be an error. The other values can not be off by much, since they are the same or very close to the .300 WSM values. I think the conversions between US customary inches and mm and rounding off values sometimes yields small but annoying differences. The .300 WSM C.I.P. values I used as cross refererence are official and the .325 WSM design is based on the .300 WSM (it is a 8 mm variant of the .300 WSM and lots of Americans were surprised by going 8 mm which is a traditional European bullet diameter). For the final verdict we have to wait until C.I.P. publishes its final .325 WSM data set.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit is not so good, but i will not fight you. My goal was to show that SVD is not worse then western rifles. I think that you must not delete sentence about urban legend. You can check internet. Most people think that SVD has low accuracy. Especially in Russia. It is urban legend.69.141.140.192 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for rewriting and improving the Gw Pat 90 section of 5.56x45mm NATO. Thanks for the work you are putting in! --Boris Barowski (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		You have been awarded the Cleanup Barnstar for your work on the Marco Kroon article. Pokerface (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kistler Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Favonian (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I thought that image was deleted because of copyright problems? If so, I don't think uploading it again is going to solve the problem. Hayden120 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:7.62 TKIV 85.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. A333 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And these two too: File:7.62 TKIV 85-3.jpeg and File:7.62 TKIV 85-2.jpeg A333 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Thanks, I overlooked or missed the reference. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Francis,

PNG is generally favored above JPG - it may be "larger" in this particular case, but it is a superior file format in terms of modern features, such as allowing transparent backgrounds to be a part of the image. This is, in part, why PNG is preferable to JPG. Size shouldn't be a factor; the web, and Wikipedia can handle it ;-)

Sirimiri (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Francis

Actually the legality of blades has seriously affected sales and future viability of the SAK in one of its major markets (with a distinct likelihood of this type of action spreading to other jurisdictions in the EU). Understanding of this issue is important for understanding of the future of the SAK. --Lawrence Waterhouse (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, in retrospect the legal issues around the SAK have pretty much killed it in the UK. Everyone I know who used to carry them no longer does (including myself), numerous reports exist of arrests for possession of SAK are reported e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266170/Disabled-caravanner-prosecuted-keeping-penknife-car-use-picnics.html they are no longer a gift that you can give to a friend because of this, they are of course banned on EBay UK and the largest SAK shop that I know has closed down. This demise all pivots around the legality so it is highly relevant to any article about them. It is very much as though wikipedia can't actually be related to events in the real world, or as though in an article about dinosaurs we delete extinction because there is an article about meteorites already. What do you think? --LW (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Knife legislation article is a much better place to read and write regarding the sometimes rather complex legal aspects of possessing blades in various jurisdictions than the SAK article. There is actually a rather long section in the knife legislation article regarding the UK.

Maybe you could write something in the SAK article along this lines:

==Legality==

See also: Knife legislation

In some countries and in certain U.S. states Swiss Army knives or models with certain features are defined under the law as a prohibited weapon, with attendant criminal penalties. Other laws may criminalize the ownership, sale, importation, or carrying of these knives either concealed or unconcealed.--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have an explanation for this revert? The text you added is protected by copyright as indicated in the official website mentioned in my edit summary. Is there any authorization? Did I miss something? I'm pretty sure it can't be considered a quote, not even linking the URL. Thanks in advance for your answer. Regards, --Gliu 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed a good faith removal of several paragraphs and restored the article to the previous state. You have a point most of the removed text came from information provided on Swissarms websites. I have adapted the article accordingly.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not confident with copyright violation policies here on en.wiki but I find the rewording absolutely not sufficient. Should I ask a third opinion? --Gliu 23:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When someone expresses copyright doubts regarding something I contributed to Wikipedia and they have a obvious point or it makes me doubt, I try to remove that contribution. I like to avoid copyright discussions, since I feel they are not worth my time and for legal layman like me they often appear to be hairsplitting contests.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Francis Flinch. Gliu requested an opinion on this copyright issue. Wikipedia only permits the copy-pasting of text from websites which are Public Domain, licensed as CC-BY-SA or have granted permission to us through the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Blockquotes with proper attribution are limited to only small excerpts where the original text is necessary for meaning. Unfortunately, none of these conditions apply to the use of text from the swiss arms website. Therefore, I've removed the copied text -- and the info can only be added using rewritten wording. I understand that these CV problems can be complicated, so if you have further questions, please feel free to ask. — CactusWriter | ^needles 00:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so what you left on my talk page,as to glock pistols,i can understand.it makes sense now that,..well,../.but i suspect strongly that it is that the wide article about the line,but to clarify,what exactly does this imply?i did not really get a sure,comprehendable-with-no-doubt awnser,just,sorry to inform you,a lengthy awnser that hints most strongly,to the point that it comes somewhat close to a definite awnser,that the one article is good,but it also at small points,it somehow hints "meekly" that each glock line caliber/frame size/perhaps others should have,or at least would be fine to have,their own articles,as unlikely as that may seem(even to me).and It still hints weakly,but stronger that the others,that perhaps the .380 acp variants,perhaps because of the blowback operation and such,should be with the others.i think i can reasonably predict,but if i could please be given full clarification on my talk page?and i won't do much if anything with the article for now,perhaps other opinions will come.Keserman (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

baisacally, it plainly is fine with the one article.Keserman (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with the SVG version of your drawing? Kalel2007 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Concerning this edit of your I would like to inform you that per WP:Manual of Style "External links" should be written with small "l" and not capital "L". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding my neglected article. Just wanted to express my appreciation. Marcus Qwertyus 04:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:XM2010 November 2010.jpg. Marcus Qwertyus 19:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you just essentially revert my contribution, but tried to make it like you didn't? Instead of editing you just copied in exactly your old paragraphs one by one, in three edits, with no reasoning. Are my data wrong? Are my wording inferior?

Calculation-wise, QTU Lapua, as offered by Lapua themselves, uses the more accurate model when Lapua bullets are used. You can load the drag curve for the specific bullet, as measured by doppler in real life, instead of approximating using BCs on the G1 model and a bunch of velocity thresholds.

I also took the care of pulling up the climate history for the region (closest station with records being Kandahar) for the 11/2009 month to take a closer average, including averaging barometric pressure and humidity by hand, to provide the "30.1 inHg (102 kPa), humidity: 25.9%, and temperature: 15 °C (59 °F)", instead of simply using ICAO. The pressures are significantly different.

Wording-wise, this isn't external ballistics, it's a public consumption article. There is no reason to "illustrate how environmental condition differences can significantly affect bullet flight", and even if you did it makes no sense to simply offer a comparison between sea-level and 1,043 m. Why would it be particular relevant to this record to compare to sea-level?

This is why I offered the most basic information first that would be interesting to the general reader: travel time, drop (in distance and in degrees instead of MOA, any ballistics enthusiast can multiply by 60, but the general reader doesn't know to divide by 60), and possible wind offset, because it illustrates the distance and also ties in with the next part of the article. I left all the other numbers used to arrive at those in the back, instead of scattering them everywhere.

-- Znode ^(talk) 20:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the numbers and it did turn out that I forgot to compensate for on-site barometric pressure from weather stations' sea-level-equivalent. 101930.29887 * ((1 - (2.25577 * (10^(-5)) * 1043))^5.25588) = 89940.8865 Pa on location, and moist-air ρ is back to 1.0854 kg/m³ (1.0821 air, 0.0033 H2O) which is much closer to your value of 1.069 kg/m³. My original value of 1.2336 definitely didn't make any sense since it was higher than sea-level. Travel time is back to 6.0 sec (well, 5.957) If that was the reason you reverted, I apologize. -- Znode ^(talk) 21:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, and I again apologize for my snappish attitude. I didn't at all mind your edits, but just misinterpreted the way in which you did them - had you just simply reverted in one go, with a comment of, say, "your ρ isn't right, too high for altitude", I would have reached a different conclusion. When it was done in three edits I misinterpreted it as someone "guarding their article" but trying to make it not look like a revert, something I've encountered before. Sorry. -- Znode ^(talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sako TRG displayed by a FDF sniper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. A333 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from 8x57 IS. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I was just looking at this article and noticed that the Chinese Girl who jointly holds the Junior world record with a maximum score is not listed in the list of Womens world record holders unlike her South Korean counterpart, is this an error on someones part or is it correct i.e something to do with the competition it was set in or when it was set. You seem to have been active in these articles so I'm hoping you know a bit more than I do. Waacstats (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Keep up the great work!

A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback. Precision is part art, part science and many Wikipedia articles have excess precision e.g. 'a shopping mall of about 900,000 square feet (83,612.736 m²)'. I agree with you that it's a different matter in those weapon articles. So I'll go back and reset them. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

However, I did notice some inconsistency. For example SIG GL 5040 said '432 mm (17 in)' before and after the edit, but most other weapons of that length stated inches to one decimal place. I'd be happy to apply the existing precision but do you know the reason for the inconsistency? Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I haven't investigated it in detail but I believe with more effort both from the human (me) and code, the precision value from the old template can be carried over to the new template. I think that's what you want. But please just confirm it (either here or my talk page) and I'll get to work on it for these weapon articles. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made a further response at my talk page. Lightmouse (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FDF 8.6 TKIV 2000 or Sako TRG-42 sniper rifle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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. Thank you. B (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:7.62 TKIV 85.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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. Thank you. B (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Francis Flinch, thanx for your work and please look at this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauser_M_98&action=historysubmit&diff=447889441&oldid=437006384
• Ordinals
• w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Typography

We do not use the superscript. The superscript of the most common text fonts and computer systems is not the same as the traditional typography for ordinal suffixes. The superscript breakes the text-line far and ugly to next upper text-line. And the source code is wasted by sup/sup.

Keep it simple!

And 21th is a senseless character string, it should be 21st (22nd, 23rd, 24th, 31st ...) --Diwas (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have been editing this file several times today. Unfortunately, it's kind of futile because the file is regenerated from scratch every 15 minutes by an automatic script, which extracts entries from the relevant article talk pages. Favonian (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This diff seems to have reverted quite a few copyedits. Was this intentional? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. The images became a chaos and can sometimes even be regarded as misleading. When an editor decides to distribute images that where in a gallery throughout an article this does not contribute to an article. Since there are many images of various civilian and military Swiss Army knives in Wiki Commons the plus minus 10 pictures in the article are quite sufficient to make the text more readily understandable in the sense that the reader has something the see at the right about what is written at a particular point in the text. If I pruned sensible additional textual information which was illustrated with an image (titanium knife model?) I am sorry. The image of the titanium knife could be rotated 90 degrees to make it appear less tall next to the text, without losing any picture quality. Is http://www.sakwiki.com/ a viable source for Wiki Commons images, i.e. are the pictures on that website copyright free?--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You undid a significant amount of copyediting work. If the reason was nothing more than a quibble over the order or choice of the images then I'll restoring the updated content; it is easy enough to reposition the images as you please from the new version. Unfortunately I can't see any license on the SAKwiki site; should there be a license page hidden somewhere which releases its content under an acceptable license then feel free to add content from there, but otherwise it has to be treated as all rights reserved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can restore the textual edits. I will try to restore the images accordingly later. Thanks for your time searching on http://www.sakwiki.com/. Like you I could not find a clue that there is free content on there. SAKwiki is a decent external link however for this article.

Thanks for uploading File:Wenger logo 2009.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on 5.45x39, you made this edit on September 15th adding this line: "The twist rate used in AK-74M rifles is 1 in 195 mm (1 in 7.68 inch)." I'd be interested to know where you heard that, since the AK-74 and RPK-74 had previously used a 1:200 mm twist rate. You didn't seem to give any source for this info, however. Do you remember where you heard it? :) --CumbiaDude (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not remember where I heard or read that, so maybe the information is incorrect. The 5 mm difference between 195 mm (36.11 calibers) and 200 mm (37.04 calibers) is small anyway and using 10 mm increments appears to be more logical. Projectile length and the spin rate contribute most to sufficient transitional bullet stability anyway, explaining why very short AKS-74U barrels have a significant shorter 160 mm (29.63 calibers) twist rate to compensate for decreased muzzle velocity and hence spin rate. I will change it to 200 mm in the 5.45x39mm article.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Very-low-drag bullet, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page F-class (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Minute of Angle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

the article Minute of arc covers this material and already has a firearms section.

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. Glrx (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Disruptive editing by user Gunnai?". Thank you.

Though the DRN thread has been closed (DRN is only for content, not conduct, disputes), I have filed a sockpuppet investigation here. You might want to hold off taking the matter anywhere else until you see the result there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better than it was before…I think that it still has too much information…but, I can live with it. It’s been a pleasure working with you…perhaps we’ll run into each other on another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh…for informational purposes the reason the British and U.S. use the 7.92 designation was to more easily differentiate the 8mm Mauser from the other 8mm military cartridges used at the time. It has nothing to do with the caliber itself. We still see this today with new cartridges. For example…the .38 and .357, the .45 and .454, or the .32 Magnum and the .327 Magnum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Milipol requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Alexf^(talk) 15:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I value your contributions, but encourage you to include inline reference citations. I anticipate comparatively little variation in the detonation velocities of simple molecules like nitroglycerine, nitroguanidine and RDX; but cellulose polymers have been subjected to varying degrees of nitration and purification over the history of smokeless powder formulations; and that may significantly change measured detonation velocity.Thewellman (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As your reply suggested, the standard conditions under which detonation velocities are measured may be quite different from internal ballistics conditions. Chemical variations in nitrocellulose, sometimes expressed as percent nitrogen or percent nitration, would be a separate cause of differences even when test conditions remain the same.Thewellman (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I am not sure you know the history associated with Harrison's recent record, JM Ballistics along with 5 wiki editors initially went out of their way to suggest the record was lies until an overwhelming amount of evidence was produced. No other sniper record/entry goes into such esoteric and questionable terms, only Harrison's. The article keeps returning to 'luck' and yet it was the rifle Tom was talking about not the kills, also we see no mention of 'luck' in the other sniper articles. I think that at this point I'll have to edit them to include the element of 'luck' and make it stand out, just to set balance as it were. The longest recorded kill entry also received excessive vandalism Twobells (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Mr Flinch, in November last year you added several technical remarks on the differences between Glock's Safe Action system and the new Walther's Quick Defense Trigger mechanism. I invite you to join the discussion area (Talk) related to the Walther PPQ article in order to add your references to that topic, since actually it is hard to find on the web many informations on that technical subject. (Marcel Fosca (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hey Francis I need your help, some editors keep removing the images of the AWM 338 and the AS50 that AI have kindly sent me for educational purposes on Wikipedia, there is no free image available, I have full permission yet an editor blithely suggests that as the weapon is available to buy 'someone' could upload it, yet in 5 years no-one has. I may have got the parameters wrong on the images concerned, could you check them as a matter of urgency before the same editors attempt deletion yet again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Accuracy_International_AWM_338.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Accuracy_International_AS50.jpg

Many thanks Twobells (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ignore, I have resolved the issue by correcting the template. Twobells (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I was just trying to reduce the wordiness and advert-like writing that resulted from using the Chey Tac Info Papers as a main source. Rgambord (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coordinated Universal Time 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 .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
laboratories.<ref>http://www.bipm.org/en/scientific/tai/ BIPM Time Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)]</ref> (See the article on [[International Atomic Time]] for details.)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a house citation style. As explained at WP:CITEVAR the established style of citation at a particular article is to be respected and maintained. "International Atomic Time" uses short citations. Please do not disturb the established system for that article. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style for a certain article is established by the first editor who needs to add a citation. Sometimes the people who edit discuss it on the talk page and agree to change it to something more appropriate for that article. Sometimes somebody just changes it and subsequent editors go along. Usually articles on similar topics do not have the same style. In academic journals, certain subject areas might tend to use the same style, such as APA being used in American psychology and education journals. But since editors tend to have different backgrounds and come from various countries, you can't count on Wikipedia articles on similar topics having the same citation style. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment for you over at the 5.56 article. Please review soon as I believe we are spreading dangerous confusion that may lead to people loading dangerously overpressure rounds. There is some subtlety to it, please review the situation carefully and be willing to question "common knowledge" on the issue. Gigs (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my edit from the EVPAT page? It is important to note that these pressures are not comparable to SAAMI pressures, due to the CIP/EVPAT methodology giving significantly higher readings for the same pressure. Gigs (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on my talk page, though we probably should move the discussion to the article talk. Gigs (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Small arms ammunition pressure testing, they look good. We should probably add a section on the obsolete CUP measurement too. Gigs (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out User:Gigs/sandbox and let me know what you think. It's in the infobox sandbox for now, but it's fully backward compatible so we can roll it out without affecting existing articles. Gigs (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added three usage examples, multiple pressures with multiple methodologies, original style (backward compatible parameters), and the final one shows single pressure with single specified methodology. Gigs (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the multiple methodologies best followed by single pressure with single specified methodology. What I like best might not be the same as what the majority of Wikipedia editors like. Before rolling it out I suggest presenting your alternative(s) at the appropriate talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_firearm_cartridge/ballistics).--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's come to my attention that the current test protocol at the US-branch of the NATO EPVAT test facility is to measure using the Kistler sensor, but ahead of the case mouth rather than at the CIP specified body location. I'm not sure how to reconcile this with the UK document that specifies "EPVAT protocol or CIP protocol", since the CIP location pressures are going to be much higher. I am seeing typical mouth pressures of around 45-48,000 PSI for duty issue M855 5.56 using the US ARDEC/ATF EPVAT facility method, which isn't surprising since mouth pressures usually are lower than body pressures. I think this is why some have incorrectly concluded that CIP specifies mouth pressures. What do you think? Gigs (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can not shed much light onto that. I do know the German 5.56 standard cartridge DM11 is specified at ≤ 405 MPa case mouth pressure, so only about 6% under the C.I.P. Pmax of 430 MPa. This implicates the procedure you mentioned is not only used in the US. The Swiss 5.56 standard cartridge GP90 (Switzerland is no NATO member) is specified as ≤ 4300 bar/430 MPa mean chamber pressure. DM11 achieves somewhat more muzzle velocity and energy than GP90 however, but the used propellants are not the same. The US pressure figures around 330 MPa appear quite low to me as they did to you. There are however modern propellants around that exhibit a extended period in which they producing high pressure levels. Meaning these propellants can more efficiently press against a projectile and achieve high muzzle velocities without having to rely on a short lived relatively high Pmax. Even these developments in propellants for professional use can not plausibly explain the remarkably low US pressure figures you saw. If the pressure measurement is taken not much in front of the case mouth I do not expect to see much Pmax difference. Looking at typical rifle pressure curves Pmax is generally achieved when the bullet has traveled several centimeters or a few inches down the bore. The US EPVAT facility and RUAG might have found and implemented a sensible solution to avoid drilling the cases of the 5.56 mm ammunition lots they have to test.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the case mouth measurements are so much lower, but it may be more of an artifact of the way the transducers work rather than true pressure. I do know Kistler recommends using an extra shield layer when placing their sensor in the bore, but I'm not sure if that applies to case mouth measurements as well. I have found some more sources that you might find interesting:

• [2]
• [3] Scroll up a couple pages to see their test setup, it looks like they put the Kistler mid-chamber. The graph shows 51,000PSI or so for M855. It does not appear that they drilled the brass, but it's not clear. Gigs (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those were nice sources. Sadly they do not explain the low case mouth pressure measurements. I am not surprised Kistler cautions for placing sensors in the bore. The leade and first part of the bore are subjected to much wear.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that one of the studies was regarding variations even between test barrels that are supposed to be set up the same. It looks like this is a very inexact science, where tiny changes in measurement technique can give very different readings. Almost makes you want to go back to copper crushers. :) Gigs (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that EPVAT procedures require the sensor to be mounted ahead of the case mouth. The big advantage of this mount is that there is no need to drill the cartridge. Drilling prior to firing is always a time consuming process (fast quality control and feedback to production is essential during the manufacturing process) The disadvantage of this mount is that the pressure rises much faster than in a drilled case. This causes high frequency oscillations of the sensor (approx 200kHz for a 6215 Kistler) and this requires electronic filtering with the drawback that filtering also affects the lower harmonics where peak is found causing a slight error in the measurement. This slight error is not always well mastered and this causes a lot of discussions about the filter order, cutoff frequency and its type (Bessel or Butterworth) We have observed that it is not a so big issue in C.I.P. testing. --M. Deby (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bor rifle 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 .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] [[cartridge (firearms)|cartridge]] developed for [[military]] long-range [[sniper rifle]]s) will be a novelty in the [[Polish Armed Forces]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PSO-1 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 .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• reticle can be adjusted by manipulating the elevation and windage turrets in 5 cm at 100 meters (0.5 [[Angular mil|mil]] or 1.72 [[Minute of arc|MOA]] increments.<ref>[http://www.dragunov.net/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little more explanation on why I reverted your changes to Glock. One of Wikipedia's goals is to be "understandable to the widest possible audience." That means using terms like "modularity" will only confuse the average reader. You can learn more at WP:Jargon. Thanks! Skarz (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glock may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. 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 .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• be used to fire an overpressure test cartridge generating {{convert|5000|bar|MPa psi|abbr=on}} (the normal maximum operating pressure Pmax for the [[NATO EPVAT testing#Proofing|9 mm NATO]] is
• | Numerous law enforcement agencies and [[Bangladesh Army]]<ref ref>[http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/bmi/_news/bmi.aspx?id=4D684A58524C48484153513Dname="SWAT01">{{cite web| url = http://www.bdmilitary.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=275&Itemid=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iron gall ink may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• clergy rolls and ships' [[logbook]]s.<ref>http://www.registrarsink.co.uk/about.html Registrars' Ink]</ref><ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/making_history/makhist10_prog11b.shtml Henry 'Inky'

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in a proposal to include that article among the 1,000 Wikipedia:Vital articles. The discussion is here. Thewellman (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to .325 Winchester Short Magnum 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 .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• comparison is not totally objective since the [[8 mm Remington Magnum]] operates at 460 MPa (66717 psi, the .325 Winchester Short Magnum at 435 MPa (63,091 psi), the [[8 x 68 S]] at 440 MPa (

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ferritic nitrocarburizing 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 .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• were to wear off. Besides Glock several other pistol manufacturers, including [Smith & Wesson]] and [[HS2000|Springfield Armory, Inc.]], also use ferritic nitrocarburizing for finishing parts

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MG 42 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 .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• range of the M53 is {{convert|2000|m|yd|0|abbr=on}}, and the terminal range of the bullet is {{convert|5000|m|yd|0|abbr=on}, the same as the MG 42. MG 42s captured in Yugoslavia at the end of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Korps Commandotroepen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 12 gauge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that alternate source so quickly![4] I noticed that it's a press release, so I hunted down the original and used that instead. I also adjusted the text to make it clear whose opinion it is. I hope that's OK. Rezin (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you reverted my edit on our article 5.45×39mm#Civil_use, which added a reference to the "Bulgarian AK-47" offered by Centerfire Systems [[5]] (it's shown on the bottom of page 11 in that page team of the online catalog).

I followed Wikipedia procedure in making the edit and used "Prove It" to properly cite the source material. You didn't give a reason for reverting my edit, and I'd appreciate knowing what, if anything, I did wrong.

Thanks in advance loupgarous (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section just points out there have been several non 5.45×39mm AK platform arms developed and some are or have been commercially offered to civilians. You write about a particular 5.45×39mm AK platform rifle made from Bulgarian and US made parts. For years there there have been commercial AK platform offerings around for civilians chambered in 5.45×39mm. Combining parts originating from Eastern Europe and the US is also rather common. Have a look at http://www.arsenalinc.com/usa/Rifles/ and this is not the only company that offers Eastern European and US made 5.45×39mm AK platform arms. Companies like Waffen Werks, Krebs Custom, James River Armory, Molot and Kalashnikov Concern are or have been also active in producing (semi-automatic) 5.45×39mm AK platform arms for civilians. If you want to point out that several manufacturers and vendors offer 5.45×39mm AK platform arms to civilian customers that is fine with me. I think the article does not need advertising for these companies by mentioning them. They did not create new arms.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis Flinch! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 5.56×45mm NATO 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 .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• - the SS109/M855 [[ballistic coefficient]] (G7 BC) of 0.151 was improved to 0.152 for the M855A1)<ref name="sadf">[http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=2414 The 6.5×40 Cartridge: Longer Reach for

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AEK-971, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AO-38. 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) 08:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis re: our previous collaborations, I thought I might ask you first about a new development regarding the holder of the longest shot record and PerSec. It seems that the terror group ISIS aka ISIL aka De'ash have placed a bounty on his head and wonder if perhaps we could apply to have his biography removed and any mention of him redacted on Wikipedia? For the 'Longest Confirmed Kill' article perhaps it could be edited to read 'A Known British sniper' maybe? While there is a series of historic bounties and threats against British snipers this is a new, specific threat targeting him and his family, the problem is I don't know how to request deletion and redaction of any data referring to him. Twobells^t@lk 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism? Are you kidding me? If something is produced from 1974 to 1991, you don't need to put 1974–1991. The proper format is 1974–91. Italia2006 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. No. Yes. No. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Ranges.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I received a message via the OTRS system this morning from a Wikipedia reader whose sole reason for contacting us was to compliment the high standard of writing displayed on the External ballistics article. Since you were responsible for much of the work on that page, I thought you deserved a bit of recognition - thank you for your contributions there! Yunshui 雲水 08:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why force a logo to 200px? Doesn't the software choose the best size automatically if you leave that parameter empty? I've been uploading a lot of logos recently and adding them to articles, so this would be good to know. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis Flinch.
Is see you are the '№ 1' editor on Harrison's page. I take it the article I linked to, 'Range of a projectile' is no good for explaining the term "range the target"? I also created a redirect 'Range (ballistics)' to the same page. If that is not a good redirect, then lets get it deleted. I was looking around for a page to explain the 'concept' of determining the range to a target for a sniper. That one was the best, though rather technical, that I could find, but also unsourced! I found several pages like this one that need sourcing. My knowledge of ballistics is rather scant unfortunately, more practical than theory!

Feel free to check over my recent edits, you appear to know more than I do on this topic.

I see you answered the message from Twobells re "British Sniper ISIS Threat" above about Harrisons name being revealed. I think we'd be hard put to do anything useful for him, he's all over the internet, as you noted. UK MoD needs a kick up the @!$# for that! - 220 of ^Borg 10:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you corrected the date of a publication. I don't read German, but the link seems to be to some sort of default landing pad when articles are no longer available. If I'm right about the page that was linked to not supporting the information in the article, I suggest it would be more productive to find a page that actually supports the artice, especially since the value seems to be a widely known value that would be readily available on some English-language website. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you add a new citation, but give the access date as 2013. Please explain how you can satisfy the WP:Verifiability policy based on a document you read around two years ago. Also please explain how it is appropriate to add a URL without checking to see that the URL still works and supports the material you claim it supports. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

I have not experienced any problem with the URL and the page on the BIPM website responded and responds fine on my internet connection. The table contained and contains 9 192 631 770 Hz and the current ref text is in English and states that frequency. I copy pasted the ref, so the access date was wrong. Thanks for correcting that.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to .338 Lapua Magnum 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 .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Triebel), LM-101), .338 (.338 Yogi, LM-105), .343 (.343 Lapua Magnum LM-107)<ref name="multiref1"/>), 9.3&nbsp;mm (9,3-338 Lapua Magnum (Triebel)), .375 (9.5×70 ELR) and .50 calibre ([[.510

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Francis Flinch,

I've seen that you reverted the edit I made concerning a new record of long distance shooting. I would like to know your justification to this reversion. You mention "where are the pictures of the target ?", without looking at the source I included. This source is a blog about military and security known for its serious, and was itself referring to an article published in a regional French newspaper (Var Matin --> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Var-Matin , founded in 1946) that can be considered as a reliable source.

Additionally, Var Matin already reported in December 2014 several shoots from the same sniper at respectively 2.400, 2.700, 2.960 and 3.500m (see: http://www.varmatin.com/draguignan/benjamin-gineste-formidable-tireur-a-longue-distance.1962734.html )

See http://www.opex360.com/2015/09/28/le-record-du-monde-de-tir-longue-distance-pour-officier-du-1er-regiment-de-chasseurs-dafrique/

And copy of the article of Var Matin published on the Facebook page of the 1er RCA (1er Régiment de Chasseurs d'Afrique) : https://www.facebook.com/1erRCA/photos/a.717382185006832.1073741829.687049798040071/873985252679857/?type=3

Cordially. --Ndiver (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my edit on .308 Winchester. I suppose since you're one of the regular editors you must know more about the article than me.

I'd reverted an edit by an IP editor as I couldn't find where it was showing on the page so presumed it was some sort of miscoding. Their edit had been one of those metricization ones the Brits seem fond of so I could see where you'd want to revert it, since the .308 is an inch cartridge.

Now here is the puzzle which has me stumped. I don't see the result of your edit either. Where is it on the page? Not the source code, the page itself. Thanks. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another problem with the template. Infobox will only take 5 datasets. See Talk:.308 Winchester#Infobox editing mistakes problem - please refer to Template:Infobox firearm cartridge and article history before discussing. You don't know how to change a mother template do you?Trilobitealive (talk) 16:20, 3 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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fountain pen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reduce, Contact and Spread. 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) 08:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note...the Russians do not measure accuracy the same way that American, British, and other western sources do. I recommend that you add a detailed explanation. If not, it will cause confusion. As the results will appear to be much more accurate than western sources.--RAF910 (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9x22mm is the metric measurement of the cartridge, not a trade name. That is why it was in brackets. It is a common practice when describing cartridges with caliber-based designations. Hotspur23 (talk)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Atomic clock page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? I hope you changed all the links to it as well.Digitallymade (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page from Cartridges of the World 2014

Delete this once you've seen it.Digitallymade (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relax every 8x58mm R Danish Krag link now links to 8x58mm R. See what I wrote regarding Cartridges of the World on your talk page at User_talk:Digitallymade#Cartridges_of_the_World_data_source. I am aware Cartridges of the World contains excellent information but also errors. Especially regarding European cartridges.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only COTW by also Small Arms of the world also refers to 8x58R Danish Krag as the correct cartridge name. That book is edited by Danish firearms historians as well as the Danish Museum in Copenhagen. I'll always accepts Barnes. Three or four of his books are huge parts of the referencing in the firearms pages. If you have a better source that shows that there is no such thing as 8x58R Danish Krag that is better than COTW and SAOTW, I'd like to see it. Digitallymade (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to use sources and references openly available on the www. Most readers do not have the books you mention on their bookshelves. You could look at http://dutchman.rebooty.com/GB8x58RD.html or the Wikipedia pages in non English. Since you have trouble with using one of the alternative nomenclatures you can revert it to 8×58Rmm Danish Krag..--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have made massive errors in your changes. Clearly you know nothing at all about this FN development.Digitallymade (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does what you did qualify as vandalism?Digitallymade (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this constructive message.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can also be a crime, with comment "photo not on topic". That quality image and FP; with nib beter seen than on anyone. --Mile (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Iridium Point Germany nib photo is actually a good one and I did not erase it. It just is not a good lead photograph choice for the fountain pen article. That should be an image of several fountain pens. I added it as the lead image in the nib article's fountain pen section. The nib on the photograph actually is an affordable modern OEM nib of Asian origin. Only the tip is German made and it contains no Iridium as other modern nib tip pellets. The tip pellets are made of an alloy containing Osmium, Ruthenium and Tungsten. I actually own an example of the photographed nib. The nib writes quite well, but I fitted a nib that writes even smoother in the pen I received it in.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then our visions are very different, i help for visualization here. Before i went into that photo, i saw there is almost (or none) QI or FP images of fountain pen. So i went into, merely, 5-day "excursion" (shoting, post-processing etc) to bring that. I find image perfect for that side too, not just "literacy" which i also prefer. But i dont like those 2 images, they are so dark, and quality is so-so. For me, 1st, 2nd, etc is even not important, just to stay there. I also have Pelikan 14k golden, but its not so nice design so i take this. However, when in time, i will make Pelikan more close-uped, and put it there. Just time is necessary. Which write better, dont know, i use pencil mostly. Regards, --Mile (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons already has a category to insert your images of the Pelikan pen in. The article has to feature pictures of various styles and mechanisms used in fountain pens over time. From what I saw you will probably provide a very good image that can be added to the article. Impressive looking nib decorations might look nice, but actually have little to nothing to do with how well a nib is tuned and writes. Try your (expensive) Pelikan pen on nice paper and do not give up easily. People who are used to using pencils, ball points or roller ball pens have to develop their writing motor skills to master and appreciate using fountain pens.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 7.62×51mm NATO into 5.56×45mm NATO. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote and referenced a lot of that table work. I still contained obvious calculation errors.--Francis Flinch (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits on the AK-12's article. It was unnecessary and all your doing is removing information rather than adding into them. Don't change the format of the article or edit it again unless your adding new information about the rifle or new pictures that the article can use. Thank You! - Gun Lover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Lover (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you are the original uploader of the nice image "Diopter sight picture.jpg", which amongst others is used in the diopter sight article. I would like to use this image on the Norwegian Wikipedia as well, but then the image has to be uploaded to commons. Would you please do that? Sauer202 (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding this edit are you sure about that image. In the file description in Commons it refers to the little kid being entertained by reenactors as a German Machine Gunner. I made a comment in the talk page about specifying that fact in the caption but on second thought I think the image just doesn't belong in a serious article. SlightSmile 02:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hard call and I added the picture shows a Wehrmacht reenactment. That does not answer the dilemma; do you prefer clear (modern) images of the MG 34 or do you prefer using non-HQ WW2 images? I agree the boy behind the MG 34 and Bren light machine gun in the image are annoying, making this not a very good reenactment image.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. The reader should know right away its a modern reenactment. When I first saw the image I naturally assumed it was a picture from the war. Then as I look closer a kid manning the gun. Could be - they knew how to make it fun for the little ones while indoctrinating them. But the dirt in the photo does look a bit too crispy for WWII era photography. SlightSmile 17:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have seen, that you have created the graphics https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:5.7_x_28.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:.223_Remington.jpg They look exactly the same but with different numbers, which looks like an error to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogoh (talk • contribs) 14:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis Flinch, i had a look to members of this projekt. Regrettably, you're one of the few actually active wikipedians in this scope as I've found by your edits. Maybe you find some pleasure in watching this discussion. Best regards --80.187.109.37 (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stock (firearms), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M16A2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you maybe say something about that case?--Sanandros (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can u again say something as some users still have some questions. Thx.--Sanandros (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Flinch, what is your source for cartridge case capacities? I see that you have added them to the 6.5x57mm infoboxes and I would love to add them to several other cartridge pages I have written. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I used the database contained in the QuickLOAD ballistic software. I loved your infobox solution regarding the rimmed 6.5×57mmR variant. I added that solution to the 7×57mm Mauser article. These two cartridges are by no means the only German cartridge designs that have a rimless and rimmed variant, as break-action hunting rifles are rather common over there. What cartridge case capacities do you want to know? I can look if QuickLOAD has them listed. --Francis Flinch (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw your addition to the 7x57 page. If it’s not too much work, the one I’m most interested is are:

• .275 No 2 Magnum
• .280 Jeffery
• .303 Magnum
• .318 Westley Richards
• .350 Rigby
• .400/350 Nitro Express (will also give .350 Rigby No 2)
• .360 No 2 Nitro Express
• .369 Nitro Express
• .400 Jeffery Nitro Express
• 11×59mmR Gras
• .450 Black Powder Express (will also give .450 Nitro Express)
• .500/450 Nitro Express
• .450 No 2 Nitro Express
• .461 Gibbs
• .577 Nitro Express
• .600 Nitro Express

Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Platignum (with the g) is a pen company. Platinum Pen seems to be an ink company, totally separate. Thanks for clarifying and sourcing that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted my edit at SIG Sauer P250 with the edit summary "rvv", implying that it was vandalism. As I mentioned on the talk page, this content was unsourced or not reliably sourced. Feel free to join the discussion there but lease refrain from reinstating unsourced material without discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you changed the caption to read "conspicuous 15 minute markings" instead of "conspicuous 10 minute markings". Are you sure you intended that? It certainly looks to me like the most conspicuous markings are 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 (so at 10 minute intervals). I could see that someone might think the markings at 5 minute intervals are also conspicuous, but I just can't see how you can describe that bezel as having as "conspicuous 15 minute markings". Can you explain your thinking, please? --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first 15 minutes on that bezel are marked in minute increments. The rest is marked in 5 minute increments. Some other bezels have the first 20 minutes marked in minute increments and/or use differing backgrond colours (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VostokEuropeAnchar.jpg or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seiko_SKA367P1.jpg ). I did some rewording to try to explain the non-uniform scaling on lots of bezels better.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Francis. I understand now: "15 conspicuous one-minute intervals"! The rewording is a big improvement. Nice work as ever. --RexxS (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis --just wanted to thank you for your interest in, and oversight of, my attempts to provide a history of the surveys that have developed the information we now have of the Earth's deepest location. I originally thought it was going to just be a matter of taking the existing Wiki info, and going back to original documentation to correct data and reveal the historical import of each listed survey. I was surprised that the existing info discussed only a fraction of the important surveys. The Japanese massive investment in the Challenger Deep was poorly recounted, and the post 2010 increasing Chinese interest was entirely missing. My outline at the bottom of the Survey talk page shows how much still needs to be done. I will soldier on and try to complete this effort. Thanks again for your participation, interest, guidance, and intervention (when my ignorance becomes evident).Gwyncann (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from MG 42 into MG 34. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — 🎆 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote and introduced that text in December 2017 in MG 42 and started expanding it.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle rifle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M14 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:C.I.P. logo 2007.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis, I have been working on fixing dangling references that have no corresponding sources, and it appears you added a ref to AKM in this edit. Do you know the source? For now, I have hidden the ref. Let me know if you need any assistance if you do know the source! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was an edit in a time Google publicly showed scanned parts of books. They stopped that practice. You can change the reference to a book reference as the title, ISBN, page etc. are mentioned in the edit.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to MG 42 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. The content from the McNab book is ARR and was a very close paraphrasing. The same content was at MG 34 and was also removed for the same reason. Sennecaster (What now?) 23:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the alternative text and internal reference is ok.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to MG 42 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Delta L problem.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not used anywhere, should be recreated in MediaWiki markup if useful

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Galileo (satellite navigation) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Binoculars, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 13:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you copied or moved text from Binoculars to Telescopic sight. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

This includes text that was originally contributed other editors (such as here and here). DanCherek (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also contributed substantially to the concerned binoculars text section. Sorry for not being very aware of duplication etiquette.--Francis Flinch (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The schematic currently illustrating the articles uses the numbers from yours File:14,5 x 114.jpg, and I'm wondering, where have you gotten them from? The current website of CIP doesn't have anything larger than 12.7 mm in the "Rimless cartridges" table of the TDCC, was it different back in 2007? Thank you in advance! Ain92 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dimensions came from the PAULA database. PAULA is not like the TDCC an open source.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please elaborate on that? I can't google a thing about that one( Ain92 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PAULA is an old non-online source containing essentially the same numbers that compose the TDCC information, so Google would not be very helpful. PAULA happens to contain the numbers for the 14.5×114mm cartridge and a few other cartridges that were/are not contained in the C.I.P. TDCC.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Binoculars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert König.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you removed my recent additions to atomic clock. That material was requested on the talk page and I agreed to provide it, though it was a while back. Maybe we can find a compromise.  Constant314 (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take offence. I reordered the information somewhat. A paragraph that mentions the block diagram is now at the section containing the diagram. I think there was no need for a gallery or a big diagram. I hope you are happy, and please continue editing. Francis Flinch (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the rearrangement. The gallery was just an attempt to keep the pictures from getting too far away from the relevant text, but I like your solution better. Cheers. Constant314 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ziggo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ziggo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]