Seriously, I can find no sources that use the term that aren't mirrors of Wikipedia's old page, and a Google search mostly consists of the lyrics to a song by Rage Against The Machine called "revolver." The term as you're using it is so entirely undefined it apparently includes everything from semi-automatic revolvers to aircraft cannons. Fails WP:NEO. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt use the term to label aircraft cannons in particular, or semi-automatic revolvers (unless they were full automatic) but possibly scaled down derivatives of revolver cannons like the ShKAS and DCR rifle. There was an article about someone who removed the recoil plate from a revolver which enabled the pistol to discharge all 6 rounds in the cylinder. However i would consider "machine revolver" as an unofficial term

Vjvjfjnbhvnvfnfv 12:55, 11/01/2011 (UTC)

There is a semi-automatic revolver in the Webley FosberryDigitallymade (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that multicaliber variant of TDI Vector called K10, It needing more refences, needing add more cartridges and update the information of the variant. Thank you. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Herr Gruber. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

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

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Kungfu2187 (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you act like I'm quoting a user review? I am quoting an editorial critic review, which notes that the game received higher fan reception. Are we at a misunderstanding of what the review is I'm quoting, or do you think the editor makes an invalid point? GameLegend (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)#Warshaw's comment on cartridge burial regarding our edits. Please feel free to comment there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'd be grateful if you could explain what you meant by this edit and edit summary. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying the AMPV program was replacing the GCV program. I was saying replacement of the M113 vehicle has primarily gone to the AMPV. That specifically says "replace the M113," while the GCV says pretty much all U.S. APCs, primarily the M2 Bradley. I don't know if specific M113 replacement has gone entirely to the seperate program, or if the two overlap, just that the AMPV prototype vehicles are completely different from those made for the GCV. (America789 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I still said it's being replaced and that replacement of the M113 only has gone to the AMPV program. (America789 (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Korean "conflict" armistice abrogated yesterday, so check your daily news to see if it's a war, or not. Perhaps it belongs in category "Unresolved conflicts that occasionally resemble war". --Pawyilee (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know or care what beef you have with one web publisher (Mike Sparks) but if you don't stop throwing the baby out with the bath water re: removing EL's, published "Mike Sparks" articles, or hosted articles that have nothing to do with Mike Sparksdiffdiffdiff I am going to take it to ANI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you there is more here than what seems to be your opinion re: a source by a crank and a liar full of altered or forged documents then put it up here. Please do not blank material based on your opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to link an online copy of a source is so that other editors can read it and check the source/wording/make changes. Something you need in a collaborative encyclopedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Per WP:BRD, you need to build consensus for your version on the talk page. By continuing to include information after it has been removed by several editors, you are engaging in what wikipedia considers to be disruptive behavior. I would be happy to discuss your edit on the article talk page, but your combative stance helps no one. Your characterization of the ET dump as "fact" rather than "speculation" does not hold up in reliable sources. For each source you add to the article that states it as fact, I can add another that calls it an alleged burial. Again, there is no doubt that Atari dumped truckloads of cartridges, parts, and equipment at Alamogordo. The part that cannot be confirmed is what percentage of that was an ET dump or whether millions of ET cartridges were dumped. Anyway, I hope we can discuss this more on the talk page. If not, remedial action may need to be taken. Wikipedia runs on consensus. Indrian (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the change, that works for me, as it makes it clear that sources are drawing a conclusion rather than asserting a fact through actual physical evidence. Indrian (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say thank-you for all the excellent work you have done on the Puckle page, especially finding sources for the terminology and clarifying details.Jmackaerospace (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to know quite a bit about guns I was wondering if you could tell me what type of system is the one described below? I found it in the book 'Firearms Past and Present' page 312 by Jaroslav Lugs if you want to look it up.

'These early experiments involved redesigning the Werndl rifle so that the gas compressed the striker, which opened the breech, ejected the spent cartridge case, and re-cocked the mechanism. It operated by means of a lengthened striker which was driven backwards by gas pressure. The cartridge case has a recessed primer pocket which allowed the primer to slide backwards at the moment of discharge and so drive the striker to the rear, causing the latter to cock the trigger and operate the automatic mechanism of the rifle, to which it was linked.'

I was also wondering what you would make of the patent linked to below (you can download a PDF of the original document if you find the presentation of the website hard to understand). Could you tell me how it was loaded, as I'm having trouble understanding it myself?

https://www.google.com/patents/US4510523:06, SQMeaner 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think both of us want the same thing, a better AR-15 article. We've both spent a lot of time concerned more with each other than that goal. I'm going to focus on that and that alone. What do you say? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want a LOT better page for AR type rifles, not a lot of confused mush. I also want to address the community of AR buiders. It's the modularity and extreme customization ability of AR type rifles, but not the AR-15 (a Colt Trademark) that has been responsible for the 6 million sales of such rifles in a short period of time (don't ask me for a source, I've also seen 11 million mentioned since O'Bama was elected). The AR platform has become of the most important sporting firearms platforms in history. Some narrow minded people don't seem to realize why this is.Digitallymade (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Asking you for a source is a constant on Wikipedia. If there isn't a reliable source for it, then it doesn't belong on here. This is a basic tenant you have to learn. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to "address the community". You can address them at AR15.com. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Herr Gruber. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The fact that others may use this indiscriminately should not be followed here. Colt's not likely to sue you for this as it's free, biased advertising. Those of use who write firearms history, in general, refer to AR type rifles. This is part of parcel of the tremendous problem of misrepresentation of AR type rifles in the MEDIA which we are fighting to reduce.

Wikipedia has a major problem. All of what is quoted is copyrighted and much of it is wrong. Some of us know the truth. But Wiki pedia is controlled by people with agendas who often oppose accurate information. No school, no educated person, accepts ANYTHING in Wikipedia as authoritative. So it's only value is in pointing to supposedly better and more authoritative information, which does sometimes occur. I stopped editing wiki pages about ten years ago because of the insistence by some people on false information. There is too much propaganda on this site.. Digitallymade (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the 6 million sold in the last couple of years. It's the entire body of firearms that are reloadable. That's at 300 million plus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitallymade (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Felsic2 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of "vandalism" is accusing me of editing in bad faith.[1] That's a violation of the ArbCom's discretionary sanctions. Felsic2 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might not be aware of the discretionary sanctions, thought notices are on many firearms-related talk pages. Just in case, here's the formal message. Felsic2 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've read through more of your responses to me on various talk pages, it looks like every time you reply you include some personal attack. [2][3][4], etc. That's inappropriate. See WP:NPA. Now that I've brought it to your attention I expect you to stop. Felsic2 (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Felsic2 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding your repeated personal comments. Please respond there. Felsic2 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my close of this AE request. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SIG MCX". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 August 2016.

I didn't see a response from you there. Are you still interested in the topic? Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you're not feeling well. Take good care of yourself. Don't get stressed out over Wikipedia articles and talk pages. One way or another, everything will work out. Felsic2 (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning SIG MCX, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

You thug, stop lying about the AR-15. It is not a damn assault rifle, carbine, and whatever else. 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I understand what you're trying to do here, but it's inaccurate based on what the article is actually about, which is the AR-15 and derivatives. Firstly, Stoner's original AR-15 models (the ones with the FAMAS-style charging handle, ie this) were select-fire, as were the first batch of ARs sold to Malaya; hence, AR-15s have been assault rifles and started out that way. Before FOPA's "machine gun" ban there were also legally produced civilian ARs with M16 trigger packs or modified civilian trigger packs for select-fire (and Hollywood armourers are still allowed to do that today), and we can't exactly pretend those don't exist. Second, even if you limit the category of AR derivatives to just Colt-produced variants, you still have a blowback-operated SMG (Colt 9mm SMG, and all SMG / pistol-carbine ARs like the AR57 are blowback-operated), light machine guns (Colt Automatic Rifle, CAR-15 Heavy Assault Rifle, the CMG-1 with a belt-feed upper and lower, and there's also the Ares Shrike 5.56) and a DMR (the Vietnam-era "sniper" M16 with a scope mounted to the carry handle, and Armalite made a sniper version (Mk 12 Special Purpose Rifle), as well as Stoner designing the SR-25 himself). You can't exclude the M16 and M4 from the category either because the modern civilian AR-15 inherits incremental design improvements from the M16 and M4 families, and is far more a derivative of the M16 than it is of the original Stoner AR-15; it inherits the M16's sights, the A2 brass deflector, the charging handle placement, etc. As for shotguns and sniper rifles, granted Colt never did either of those, but there are ARs out there chambered for .410 and 7.62mm sniper rifles like the Marine Scout Sniper Rifle. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point but they would best be called AR derivatives. Assault rifle only in the hyper panic driven world of politicized paranoia. I have personally fired JP enterprises Full Auto GMR-13 blow back AR-15 style weapon. Even though do not call it an AR-15 [5] And their full auto 9mm would be rightly classified as a sub-machine gun not an AR or assualt rifle. The technical term used in the industry is the right one not crap created by politicians pandering to some intellectually deficient schizophrenics.

Personally, I think it's more in service of the anti-gun argument to pretend the AR-15 is one kind of rifle than it is to acknowledge that it's a huge, diverse group of firearms that fit into almost every category of weapon. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Ok you think that about that? Why did you eliminate Modern Sporting Rifle which it widely recognized as and also the direct quote from the sourced article? Does not add up? Just confusing verbiage.

No more wall of text Hans. You own it, OK? 205.185.157.11 (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well semi-auto rifle is a bit more specific and less political as to what it actually is in civilian use, if you put in MSR you're inviting people to stroll in and add "assault weapon" to the categories as well and I'd prefer to avoid that. I thought the full quote was a bit of a tangent for the article since it's not really about that and makes TheTruthAboutGuns look bad, and I do think it's a cute quote about mall ninjas with tacticool ARs even if Spitzer had to make it about sex for some odd reason. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty lame excuse for eliminating a quote. Their is no policy about not including quotes because they make the source of the quote look bad. You should revert that as you look pretty damn .... up there. 205.185.157.11 (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, it's only a full quote of one of the sources anyway and the other two citations (Kansas City Star on February 2 2013 and a book published sometime in 2014) couldn't possibly be quoting an article Spitzer wrote in 2015. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bingo And they do not. Why are they even here as they are just sources listed that are irrelevant. Maybe they were sourcing something before that and they did a poor job placing references? 205.185.157.11 (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I did not add those sources, did you? 205.185.157.11 (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume they're sources for the "Barbie dolls for men" line since that's in the title of the Kansas City Star article. Spitzer can't have invented it for his article unless he has a time machine to tell the author of that article about it, and I think we'd know if that were the case since our article on John Browning would suddenly say he was murdered by a man in strange future clothes. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Felsic2 added all three of them together. So I guess yeah, they're all there to support that various people acknowledge the "Barbie dolls for guys" label. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Away Do not know what you want me to reply to your assumptions? Good chatting!!! Got to do other things, I do not live here. Felsic2 should argue her point then. Apparently you are just taking their word for it without fact checking. You do realize this makes you look extremely inexperienced in trust but verify editing? But I must really go now. Good luck!!! 205.185.157.11 (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why continue to argue with me? I said you own it so do as you want. I am not making any changes in the near future. But do consider that quotes that are relevant, reliably sourced, and demonstrate context are important to further and clear understanding. 205.185.157.11 (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Help:Edit summary - It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. (emphasis added)

Please use an edit summary, especially when deleting material.[6] Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Herr Gruber. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]