From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 GCA 3 Saturday night special 4 Kel-Tec 5 Gun orgs template 6 And his name is... 7 Hello Yaf 8 Thanks! 9 Senator Wellstone 10 Gun politics in Brazil 11 Gun politics in the United States 12 Saturday night special 13 New article for you to proof 14 Telescopic sight 15 Image copyright problem with Image:Kel-Tec P-32.JPG 16 Case annealing 17 Culture war speech 18 Your revert to United States Constitution 19 Template:USLobbies - can we talk about this? 20 Ninth Amendment 21 How's your physics? 22 Just a reminder 23 Three revert rule 24 Reality imitating spoofs? 25 WP:AGF 26 Help? 27 RFC 28 SNS Talk 29 Request for comment. 30 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 31 My RFA 32 Gun show (chart addition) 33 Gun show "loophole" 34 Gun show "loophole" question 35 Thank You! 36 My recent RfA 37 New article idea 38 Wikiproject Firearms 39 My Request for Adminship 40 My RFA 41 Question 42 Shotguns 43 WikiProject Firearms userbox 44 Re: Kel-Tec P-32 44.1 Right or Privilege 44.2 163.153.22.20 44.3 Thanks 44.4 The socks 44.5 unorganized militia 44.6 Burnsvillemike

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Yaf, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Willmcw 22:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GCA

Yaf, you reverted a change I had made to the Gun Control Act of 1968 page stating “rv anonymous edit that removed information without any discussion on talk page.” There was discussion on the discussion page (I think that is what you where talking about) under the FFL heading. The GCA page needs a lot of work and I did not have time to do a major revision but I just wanted to remove one part that has little or nothing to do with this federal law.

Unless someone has time to overhaul this page I will try to do it in the next few weeks. There is nothing currently discussing the import restrictions, “sporting purpose” clauses, or different types of FFL defined. I think it should also include a history section contrasting the differences of pre-68 and 68-86 to today’s laws and rules. --65.219.181.82 05:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the GCA article needs more changes than what you have made. The section on state laws is way to big (and even bigger with your changes) for something that has nothing to do with the GCA. Also you stated that private sales between people in different states has an exception for C&R holders, but they are FFL’s (type 3). Exceptions I seem to recall that there are exceptions to this for bequeath but would have to look it up to be sure. There should be something covering the move from the 1938 law to the 1968 law. (title 15 to 18) Types of FFLs Changes to the GCA since 68 Importation changes What the “sporting purpose” is Paperwork requirements (and there change over the years)

Other things to change

Under Prohibited persons it states the VPA created the background check system to “prevent sales to prohibited persons.” There needs to be a cite for that (I don’t think there is one) or “by ffls required to do checks” added.

The controversy section was gutted and needs work. --65.219.181.82 22, December 2006

[edit] Saturday night special

Yeah, I thought it was a bit long and rambling, and the formatting helped pull stuff together and make it more readable I think. Feel free to fiddle with the sections and move content around if you see a way that looks better--what I did was just a quick and dirty attempt to get things straight, I expect some more considered tweaking would help it. scot 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kel-Tec

Howdy, friend! Excellent edits to the Kel-Tec article. I created it because of my love for the SUB-2000, which I do not own but would love to someday.

From your userpage, you sound like a very interesting person...if I had the mind for it, I would have been an electrical engineer (in the next life, perhaps).

Anyways, feel free to ask for any kind of assistance using Wikipedia, I am a (somewhat) experienced user. Best, Paul 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun orgs template

Thanks for "NPOV-ing" it. I forgot to put it on my watchlist, so I didn't notice it immediately, but I appreciate your efforts.--Rockero420 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured I'd just bring this here, rather than the template talkpage. I think the ABA, Fellowship of Reconciliation, and the NAACP should be removed from the template. For one, like the Unitarian Universalism, they only mention their pro-gun control stance once, and each time in passing. They are not organizations that are dedicated to gun control. For another, listing so many groups on the one side makes it appear that that side is bigger or stronger. I know that listings on a Wikipedia template do not necessarily reflect reality, but for the average reader, that's the impression it creates.

Your additions to the League of Women Voters article, however, are another issue. I'm glad that you took the time to justify the addition of the template by quoting the League's official stance. But I wonder if another quote, one that explains why, wouldn't do more to explain. There must be some quote from the "two informational mailings" mentioned in the original quote, or other some League literature that explains the philosophical/political reasons they favors gun control? Also, the external link, if it is to be used there, should link directly to that page (if it is available). A link to the org's main website with no obvious way to find their second amendment policy is not helpful.

But even then, I would wonder: Is the LWV one of the main proponents of gun control? Is it one of the crafters of current U.S. Gun policy? If so, then of course it should remain. If not, it probably doesn't belong on the template.

I ask because I don't know. I'm not all that interested in the issue one way or the other. I'm a pacifist, so I tend to have generally negative feelings about the use of arms, but I believe in the Constitution, so my feelings are ambivalent. I just want you to know that I'm not politically motivated or anything.

Then again, if you did some research and added to the articles of all the organizations mentioned, that might solve the problem, but then again, it might be overkill.

I read through your Gun politics in Mexico article. There is a lot of good information there, but it could also use some help. Trouble is I'm not really sure where to begin. I'll check the library on Monday. Thanks for the invite.--Rockero420 02:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rockero420. I have removed the ABA, NAACP, and Fellowship of Reconciliation. I also edited their Articles to remove the USgunorgs tag. I had already removed the Universalists' Article tag for much the same reasons earlier, as I had had time to research their organizational structure more, and had determined that it was more of an anarchist government structure, what with everyone having their own beliefs. I did edit the UU's Article to make it more clear; when I started, it appeared that the organizational structure did lean far toward gun control. Turned out to be more supported by just a few leaders. The edits to the Article for the UU's now makes that more clear.

Am still researching the LWV, though. That one really stands out, from my going through their website. Haven't figured out a way to get the actual statements quoted to show on a URL. But, they popped out when I did a "gun control" search on their search engine on their website. Still working that one. As for the role the LWV played, it was a major player in the passing of the AWB. Contrary to what you may think, I actually lean more toward the Libertarians than towards the Dems or Repubs, but you probably already surmised as much. Gracias. Yaf 02:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Got the correct link URL to work on the LWV quotation. It now takes you directly to the article in question, making the quote verifiable. Yaf 03:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, good work. One more thing: I'm not sure exactly what the Wikipedia:Manual of Style says, but you may want to consider using <blockquote>"Quote"</blockquote> for long quotes. Thx.--Rockero420 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Added connections with Brady Campaign and Million Mom March. Also added claimed support for Bill of Rights. Yaf 03:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And his name is...

There's a new sheriff in town, and his name is J.R. Hercules. And he don't take too kindly to people reverting his POV-removal edits and then calling the reversions "NPOV". This ain't no NRA bulletin board -- and I ain't no pushover, or someone likely to cave in. So you just watch your Wikipedia etiquette now, y'hear? (Joking aside, please make only justifiable reversions, preferably with sources. Otherwise, this will become an administrator issue, which I'd rather avoid. Thanks.) J.R. Hercules 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please use grammatical language when making changes in the future to articles. I will continue to delete poor grammer edits regularly when I cannot tell what the point of the individual was that made the edits originally. It only takes a few more minutes for your edits to at least make sense. And, as for POV edits, please do not call gun rights activists with your POV label of anti-gun control activists. Gun control activists are just activists that favor gun control; gun rights activists are just activists that favor gun rights. Please do not label either of them by your POV statements that favor the other side's viewpoint. Such is extremely POV. Instead, please put both in a positive form of a statement, to respect the other's views. This is Wikipedia, where NPOV is the goal, and respect for all beliefs are most desired. Thanks. Yaf 03:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, positive views are just as POV as negative. 24.1.25.39 04:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Yaf

Welcome to Wikipedia.

I would like to discuss the militia article with you, on its discussion page. I agree that there are groups within the US who call themselves "citizen's militias" and I added two other groups who use different kinds of designations. My disagreement with you is on the unique nature of the US militia as opposed to militias of other countries.

I look forward to talking with you on this subject. Tetragrammaton 08:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your vigilance in defending the content on the Gun Politics and Second Amendment pages, among others. I've been watching (and reverting) the rather POV based edits of 222.253.93.44 for a few days, and it's nice to know someone else is watching as well. I'm also excited about the revisions you've done to the Kel-Tec articles as well. Keep up the great work and the good fight! Matt 08:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks.It's a great help.Saltforkgunman 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senator Wellstone

Got another little job for you if you're interested.I have inserted the facts about the late Senator Paul Wellstone's gun control antics into his article,namely the gag order amendment to the McCain Feingold Bill.I invite you to pile on with some of your expert editing.And I will work on it some more too.Saltforkgunman 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Watched this for a few days to get a feel for the topic, and also did a little research. Have attempted tonight to craft an NPOV version containing the pertinent facts. Yaf 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.Saltforkgunman 04:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun politics in Brazil

Hey, I made a stub, I thought it was interesting enough to add because of the recent referendum, I figured someone else might do my job for me, but there you are, its not good by any means, but its better than a redlink I suppose :) I'm open to suggestions and I hope that helps :) - FrancisTyers 17:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun politics in the United States

Thank you for fixing my reference to the Bellesiles case. --Enemyofthestate 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saturday night special

Wouldn't it be nice if Griot and WayneConrad actually read the citations before deleting facts from the article...

One of the things that I unfortunately failed to document was the source of the "junk guns" definitions; no one has tagged that with a "citation needed" tag, but we (well, really I should, but I'd have no objections to help :) ) should probably cite some source laws.

One thing that has been systematically removed from the article is the argument that bans on cheap handguns are racist in origin and effect. While it is impossible to say, say "Diane Fienstein wants to ban guns so African-Americans can't have them", it is a widely held belief that discrimination against the poor is equivalent to discrimination against minorities. The NRA's page goes into quite a bit of detail there, and I think the quote from the head of CORE was a pretty clear indication of what non-firearms related groups think. In fact, race plays into the argument from the other side as well, and much of inner city violence is committed against minorities; see for example the NAACP joining in the lawsuits against gun makers. Do you think I could make a sufficiently strong case to get that information back in there, or do you think it's a lost cause? scot 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too soon; Griot just came up with the OED definition for "Saturday night", and it certainly supports the racial origins (like "Saturday Night Social", a term for a lynching). scot 19:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Have already taken up the cause, as I don't believe it is either lost nor incorrect per cited and verifiable facts. WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NOR all seem to go hand in hand in controlling speculation that must be resisted. In New Orleans, I think a strong case exists for calling policies for taking cheap or junk guns from the poor, the majority of whom were members of minorities, racist. The very expression "SNS" is but another form of racism at its heart. Join in the editing and we can try to maintain a neutral point of view and balance to the article, without sugar-coating the racist historical underpinnings of the terminology. To allow otherwise would not be worthy. Yaf 01:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article for you to proof

Since you seem to be the one I run into most often editing articles on my watchlist, here's a new one for you to look at: Firearm microstamping. I've also got redirects at ballistic imprinting and ballistic engraving, both of which are also used for the same process, though there doesn't seem to be a real consensus on the name. scot 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It took me a few days to get to it, and to first read up on the technique, but I finally did. Did a quick pass at editing the article. We still need to put in some references, though. Yaf 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

References are pretty thin. There appears to be one company that is pushing this, the owner has patented the idea, and appears to be trying to get the idea passed into law so he can sell it. It's a laser engraving technique[1], so the equipment is going to be pricey. And after a breif bit of thought, I gave up on the idea of filing down the firing pin; I think resurfaceing it would be even better--a few hundredths of an inch of tin on the tip of the pin, and the mark is still there, but completely useless. scot 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Todd Lizotte, I am one of the inventors of the microstamping technique. A few facts need to be clarified. NanoVia was acquired by Hitachi Ltd, Japan - 99% of our business was microelectronics packaging technology and high density interconnect processing for cell phones, processors and memory chips.

The ballistic id tagging technology was not sold to Hitachi, so it was transfered to a holding company called ID Dynamics, the sub-division who promotes the technology is NanoMark. The reason is NanoMark is isolated so that the technology can be easily accessed. The market, i.e. semi-auto handguns is very small and there is no business model worthwhile to make it financially viable, since the firearms industry sells relatively little volumes in comparison to our typical markets. So the technology is being offered royalty free to the firearms industry who manufacture in the USA. As for the assertion that the technology can be easily defeated, the issue is that someone with knowledge in field stripping firearms might be able to do it, however we have shown that confidence is not always a guarantee of success. As for the note in this section about using tin, the main issue is surface energies and adhesion. After several rounds the filler material will release. We have tested with bondo, lead filler, soft brass, epoxy and UV curable polymers, all failed. The concept of grinding is also possible. However the redundant surfaces take over. At a test in California, the firearm was handed to an expert in the field of firearms, based on his idea of the technology he attempted to file down the tip and ground it down by nearly 0.5 mm. At which point he claimed success. We loaded the pin into the firearm and cycled it 10 times. All the cartridge had the tracing code, which linked the cartridge to the make, model, date of manufacture and serial number. The reason is he never inspected the extractor or the breach face. The problem most people have is understanding that there is no difference to the current method of firearms and toolmark identification, they same surfaces currently have toolmarkings, they are created by the machining process and have unique attributes that can be analyzed and compared. The key is >90% of the time criminals never modify these surfaces, since most of the time they are using a stolen firearm or feel they will never get caught. The problem is at a crime scene, unless the firearm is recovered they may never be able to solve the crime, nor will they be able to figure out where or the trafficking pattern of these firearms. As of 2006, the laser process is very inexpensive, about 15 cents per surface. As for equipment cost, the idea woul dbe to get the firearms industry a tax break on investing in the equipment. currently the IBIS platform, which is flawed, is a $600k dollar imaging system that the ATF wants the firearms industry to use to take images of cartridges of every firearm manfuactured. Currently firearms sold in CA, NY and MD require the firearms industry to supply two cartridges with their firearms so that law abiding citizens can hand them to the state police labs to be entered into a criminal database. Where our technology is passive and requires no such images. If you are not fully aware, that when a person buys the firearm is MD, they have to pay a $25 fee to cover the cost of imaging those cartridges. It is even higher in NY, let alone the cost of operating the IBIS platform in tax payer money. In the end we have no financial benefit to the technology, however it is a better solution than the IBIS platform and costs significantly less. The real key is what the firearms examiners and forensic professionals feel. I see it as a simple forensic tool and a very inexpensive method to assist law enforcement. Just look at material cost in the last four years, steel has doubled in price, aluminum is nearly double as well as cartridge brass, In many cases teh cost of firearms has more to do with material commodity prices and not value added machining. Sincerely, Todd.

Thanks, Todd. Every firearm owner I know is quite adept at field-stripping his or her own weapons, which is part of the normal cleaning routine that is typically followed after leaving the range for the day. But, as you stated, this would be all that would be required to open up the parts necessary for overcoming the proposed technique. Likewise, I have never found it wise to depend on "security by obscurity" in weak cryptographic methods, or in crafting any so-called secure engineering solutions. Also, there is a major privacy issue, say, in the possibility of the use of Second Amendment protected arms used in any defense against enemies foreign, say, of a weapon that intentionally leaves a tracking code on every cartridge case that is dropped. It would be much like simply giving a complete set of all Form 4473's ever processed to any invading army. Far-fetched, of course, but the Second Amendment was put in place for an assortment of reasons, not all of which have ever occurred to date. The true cost of the technique does not rest entirely on the price of making the engraving marks on various parts of manufactured firearms, which as you note are minimal, but, rather, on the true costs associated with actually implementing the technique, such as the costs against freedom that are associated with implementing the techniques. If actually implemented, it would also push up the price of guns made prior to the date of any legal microstamping requirement being enacted, much like what has occurred to pre-1899 firearms, and pre-1986 Class III weapons. Thanks, but no thanks. Yaf 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more info from the now defunct NanoVia, and a picture:

• http://www.nanomark.com/Ballistic-id-tagging/sig-pin-sem.jpg
• http://www.nanomark.com/Ballistic-id-tagging/ballisticindex.htm
• http://www.nanomark.com/Ballistic-id-tagging/ballistic-id.htm

A web search for the company ID Dynamics doesn't turn up anything but the articles on the California bill, so I don't actually have any proof that such a company exists... scot 20:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telescopic sight

I think perhaps the range-finding instructions are worthy of their own section, or maybe two or three. MOA and milliradian based scopes require a different mindset; MOA works so nicely for users of English units because it goes from yards to inches, while milliradians work well for metric users because they're a 1/1000 ratio (i.e. 1 milliradian covers 1 meter at 1000 meters, or .1 meter at 100 meters). The special purpose reticles like the SVD type go so far as to split out rangefinding and drop compensation into separate parts of the reticle; the swoopy bit uses the height of a person to estimate range, and the chevrons on the vertical axis are for drop compensation. scot 21:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kel-Tec P-32.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Kel-Tec P-32.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Hetar 05:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Added public domain allowance. Thanks. Yaf 11:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case annealing

I got my case annealing data from an old Performance Shooter article at http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/jun96cases.html. The use of a metal shell holder, as they strongly recommend, will help act as a heat sink and transfer heat out of the cartridge base, giving you a bit more time. Whether or not you can heat the neck of the case to 660F in air without overheating the base is going to depend a lot on how quickly you can heat the case. For instance, using a higher energy torch, such as a MAPP gas torch instead of propane, would heat the neck faster, also minimizing heating of the base. Note that they also recommend spinning the case, which will give you an even heat very quickly, which would be hard using the moving torch, stationary case in water method. scot 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture war speech

Yaf, I've opened a merge discussion at Talk:Culture war speech. If you have a chance to stop by, I'd appreciate your input. Omphaloscope talk 07:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert to United States Constitution

I see you have reverted my edit to United States Constitution, contesting the factual basis. As support for my construction, I urge you to consider the following quote from Marshall's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland:

...the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument as not emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states... it would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretentions to it. It was then reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification." This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by Congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted on it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states -- and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of state governments. From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is "ordained and established" in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, "in order to form a more perfect union..." The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties. The government of the Union, then,... is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit." (emhasis added)

In my opinion, this quote unequivocally supports my construction over your revert. Please comment on my talk page. I intend to reinstate a construction consistent with this binding opinion of the Supreme Court. Argyrios 22:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the way the sentence turned out. Good edits! Thanks for taking my concern into account. Thanks for the discussion. Argyrios 00:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USLobbies - can we talk about this?

Hi Yaf, There is an article Lobbying in the United States that is the center of this list. Can we bring the discussion to the talk page of that article? I based the template on the list within that article that was created by User:South Korean Sky. The template didn't just appear out of now where. Many of the articles in questions linked in their "see also" lists to some of the other lobbies and some linked to the main article on lobbies in the US. That technique was very haphazard, the template is more effective. Let's discuss. --Ben Houston 04:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninth Amendment

Hi Yaf. You edited the Ninth Amendment page so that it says this (emphasis added):

"The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, PROTECTS rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

Previously, it said this (emphasis added):

"The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, GIVES SOME PROTECTION TO rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

I think the latter sentence is more correct, because the Ninth protects unenumerated rights against inferences from the enumeration of rights, but does not protect any unenumerated rights against inferences from other parts of the Constitution, or against inferences from statutes. Do you see my point? To be concise, I've changed the sentence like so:

"The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

Note: this is copied in the Ninth Amendment Discussion area.

[edit] How's your physics?

It's a bit convoluted, since the other editor keeps sticking stuff in without indents, but take a look at Talk:Recoil and see if you can see where the two of us aren't managing to hook up. I know my physics isn't that wrong, but he seems bound and determined to remove conservation of momentum from the concept of recoil... scot 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a reminder

re: Gun violence in the United States

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's boiler-plate language, and sounds more threatening than I mean it to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

re: Gun violence in the United States

Not sure if you are aware of the three revert rule? --Aude (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality imitating spoofs?

Really, I thought knife control was just a facetious argument used when arguing with gun control advocates, but apparently the Brits don't think so.

• "I don't think people are aware that as soon as they take a knife out, they become potential murderers" Dr Andrew Murtay
• "There can be no reason for people buying swords off the street for use or to have in their homes" Jack McConnell, First Minister

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3495378.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5086922.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/5087802.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4817974.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4031405.stm

I'm tempted to start up a new article. What do you think? scot 21:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should definitely do an article on this. Of course, it may be a slippery slope such that we may have to do an article on pointy sticks next :-) Times have definitely changed since the time of Sir Francis Drake. Yaf 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me!" scot 15:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AGF

Your edit summaries "NPOV edit" do not assume good faith and need to stop. I had some doubts about including "assaults" in the first sentence, and was looking up statistics on assaults and firearms, in order to verify it. You may also make use of the {{fact}} tag and other means. Your edit summaries tend to indicate a lack of good faith. Please also see WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Making the statement that gun violence is involved in the majority of assaults in the Gun violence in the United States lead sentence without first checking the published facts is simply POV in violation of WP NPOV policies. My edit included a link in the comment field indicating "NPOV edit" that also contained a link to the FBI UCR of 2005 showing that gun violence was involved in only 21% of even aggravated assaults in the US, and that gun violence was not involved in the majority of assaults. My edit was an NPOV edit, correcting your POV assumption that gun violence must somehow be involved in the majority of assaults in the US, without you first checking the facts. I believe we both are working diligently in making this article a featured article very soon. And, we haven't had an NPOV-tagline placed at the beginning of the article for many days now, thanks in large part, I believe, to both of our numerous contributions to this article. Arguing for the inclusion and retention of unverified facts in lead sentences of major articles, which are contrary to published facts that are verifiable, appears to me to indicate a lack of good faith on your part towards respecting gun rights. Let's continue to work this article together, while always checking facts and editing content neutrally to achieve a balance in our contributions. That way the article will be much the better for us both having been contributing to it. (If you go back and look, I have used the {{fact}} tag regularly, where I felt it was necessary.) Let's continue to contribute to this (hopefully) soon-to-be featured-article! Yaf 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

I've put in a few words on the "Storm" article, could you help me out on the Lee Enfield article... same 'fiction' entries.--Asams10 04:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I'm in the process of gathering references for a re-work of the camouflage article, with a heavy emphasis on the theory behind it--the three different approaches used (blending, mimicry, and disruption), how each is put into practice, and how camouflage has developed over time. There's alson going to be a mention of optical illusions, as that's strongly related to the issue of camouflage. I've got a collection of reference links and some notes on Talk:Camouflage if you want to take a look. Since I'm a software engineer in the digital imaging field, the way that images are perceived is of interest to me, and the theoretical aspects of camouflage and illusions in particular are very much tied into the way in which visual data is perceived. I don't know if your field of knowledge covers the visual spectrum, but you do mention on your user page you do RF stuff, and radar camouflage seems like it would be on topic for the article as well. Let me know what you think. scot 15:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SNS Talk

At first I was a little bewildered that my comments were removed, but when I looked at their positions, I realized why it seemed that I was putting words in other peoples' mouths. I'll make sure to sign comments from now on. In the meantime, do you think it would be more appropriate to restore my comments (perhaps in a different area), or just leave them deleted? 64.90.198.6 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You can restore them in a different area, and sign them, and that would probably be best, although you could also just simply indent your comments and sign them. Either is considered acceptable, although interspersing indented comments inside others' comments is not generally considered a good way for subsequent readers to follow the trail of commentary easy. More importantly, though, Welcome to Wikipedia! Feel free to make the content better! Yaf 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment.

Could you comment on my request for adminship? --Asams10 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Methinks the request was ill-advised. The type of people who comment on RfA's tend to be hypocritical at best, toxic at worst. I should have read this and this poor soul. Reading through these leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. One thing caught me. I asked you for comment, and that counted against me. It's a catch 22. I asked you, because I know we clashed once (or twice), not because I thought you'd give me a resounding recommendation. I tried to be equitable but I feel I suffer from a lack of BASIC understanding of what the process involved. Essentially, it's a gauntlet of bitter, arrogant, beaurocrats without a lick of knowledge of the subjects that I edit. They sit on their high horses and toss stones at me for stepping foot in their kingdom. Thought I was experienced enough to see a trap when I stepped into it, but it's sprung. I'll chew through my leg later. --Asams10 07:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the request was well-timed to get the ball rolling. Lots of Admins fail to receive approvals on their first attempt, but learn a tremendous amount from the request process, and often succeed within only a few months later, upon learning WP policies and existing tools better, and by becoming better WP editors to boot -- all from their starting the ball rolling by going through the RfA process. This is especially true as to the anti-vandalism tools that every user has, such as leaving warnings on userpages and going through an established process rather than just resorting to revert warring. Leaving Edit Summaries is important, too, as I think you now know, and should always be used to make it easier for others to understand your edit changes. Don't chew on your leg too much; you're gonna need it to keep hopping around the topic space to which you have made such great contributions. Keep up the good work on WP! Yaf 22:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] My RFA

-

Hello Yaf! I want to thank you for taking time to comment in my recent request for adminship. Though it didn't succeed, I value everyone's opinion, and hope to use the descriptions of the neutral and oppose votes to improve. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun show (chart addition)

I usually don't say anything about others edits unless I'm provoked in some way. But I gotta say... good call on the chart. Nice addition. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to know it looked as good to you as it did to me :-) Yaf 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun show "loophole"

In that section you write...

In reality, only 2% of firearms used in crimes have typically passed through gun shows. Of the guns used in crimes, 98% were obtained through channels other than gun shows, with the most common source being family or friends. Licensed gun dealers that sell at gun shows strictly adhere to background check requirements. In California, a purchaser cannot take possession of the firearm until the 10 day waiting period has elapsed. This may not apply to firearms that fall under the "curio & relic" laws. These are firearms that are over 50 years of age.

Would not be better moved to under the first paragraph and restated...

Although certainly a point of concern, historically only 2% of firearms used in the commission of crimes were obtained from gun shows. Of firearms used in crimes, 98% were obtained from other sources, the most common of which being family or friends. Licensed gun dealers that sell at gun shows must, by federal law, strictly adhere to background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Additionally, some states have laws requiring that a purchaser observe a waiting period before taking possession of a firearm. These waiting periods can range from 3 to 10 days depending on the state where the firearm is purchased. This may not apply to firearms that fall under the "curio & relic" laws (firearms that are over 50 years old).

Your edits are fresh so out of respect I don't want to walk on them just yet. But these are edits I'd be likely to make otherwise. Thoughts? Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! I tend to work in stages, and would undoubtedly have been strongly considering doing this myself by tomorrow anyway :-) Yaf 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool beans. Done. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun show "loophole" question

I don't get this: Another concern is the possibility that a gun dealer could pose as a private seller to circumvent federal law requiring dealer licensing and mandating background checks of firearms purchasers. However, the threshold (number of guns) that differentiates a dealer from a private seller has to date not been tested in U.S. courts.

Determining who's a dealer and who's not is trivial--if they're a dealer, they have an FFL and make you fill out a 4473 for a purchase; if they do not, then they aren't a dealer. The grey area I think you're referring to is what constitutes in the business, which is the condidtion that requires an FFL. You could sell off a hundred guns at a gun show and not be in the business if, for example, you were liquidating a collection. You could buy and sell dozens of guns a year, for a profit, and still not be in the business if the profits were not a significant part of your income. You are in the business if you have the principal objective of obtaining livelihood through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. There is no settable limit for that, as it depends on the intent of the individual, which must be individually determined. Source: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=70 scot 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point I suppose. So the determining factor is not, and likely never will be, quantity. So how to word it? I think it's a valid concern (dealers circuventing the FFL requirment), and as such think the paragraph should stay. But as you point out, the acid test won't be quantity of sales. Let me see if I can think of something. Ideas? Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Gun show Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎Template:Emot -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thank you so much, Yaf, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My recent RfA

Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article idea

I don't see an article on black powder substitues, nor are the touched on in the black powder article. Since BP is restricted in a lot of areas where the more stable BP substitutes are not, I'm guessing a huge majority of muzzleloading shooters use only BP substitues of one form or another. While I've done some BP shooting, I'm by no means current on the subject--back when I was doing it, the only substitue available was Pyrodex, and it came in only two forms, rifle and pistol. And the last thing I loaded using it was some 400 grain lead flat points for a 14" T/C Contender in .45-70, because I didn't have any .45-70 pistol load data. Shooting a compressed .45-70 Pyrodex load out of a short, ported barrel was an interesting experience. There was a tiny puff of powder in front of the muzzle after the shot, and HUGE mushroom clouds off to each side from the muzzle brake ports.

Anecdotes aside, do you have the domain knowledge to work on such an article, or do you know anyone who does? scot 15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have only recently started down the path to understanding modern blackpowder and blackpowder substitutes, after some previous experience back in the early 1970's with Civil War era firearms, so don't have much current domain knowledge in this area yet. That aside, I have found some interesting references that would be useful in writing such an article (e.g., black powder substitutes). Am pressed for time this week, but will have some time next week when on Christmas vacation. Maybe then! As for others, I am actively searching for some local expertise already, but haven't found any yet. (I know there is some, though.) Yaf 03:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Firearms

Since you are a contributor to the firearms area of Wikipedia, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining the wikipedia:WikiProject:Firearms. It mainly focuses on civilian firearms. But we will do some work in the military firearms area, although in that case we would defer to the WP:WEAPON.--LWF 21:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikiproject Firearms. I would put a fancy banner here but I don't have one made. Be sure to tell other people who are interested about the project so they can join.--LWF 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me, and that matters relating to me will continue to look fine for a long time to come. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

[edit] Question

Hey buddy! I went through Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms in search of someone with expertise in old guns. User:Zaui asked a question on the reference desk that I think you'd be able to figure out the answer to. Thanks for your time and keep on rawkin' on like ya do! ^_^ V-Man737 10:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shotguns

I created an article on the shotgun maker Perazzi. Any help would be appreciated J.Mraz 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Firearms userbox

A discussion on the WikiProject Firearms userbox is currently underway on the project talk page. Samples of various proposed userboxes can be found here and here. As a member, your input is valuable and appreciated. If you would like to contribute to the discussion or vote on your favorite, please visit the Userbox section of the talk page. Thanks! —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Kel-Tec P-32

Dear Yaf: Since I noticed you were the primary editor on the page Kel-Tec P-32, I'd ask that you please go take a look at my comments on the discussion page. The article, while very in-depth, needs citation and cleanup quite badly. You've put a lot of info down almost single-handedly (much as I did on my first page, actually, also a gun page) but now it's time to go ahead and bring it up to encyclopedic standards. If you need a hand, let me know over on my user talk page. Thanks! Bullzeye 08:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! This was my first article on WP in 2005, it definitely needed a re-work. Have started the process. Thanks! Yaf 01:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks better already. Keep up the good work and see about chasing up some sources. Happy editing! Bullzeye 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right or Privilege

A constitutional right can not be considered a privilege regardless of the jurisdiction. If a jurisdiction can claim the second amendment is a privilege, what would stop them from claiming the first amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights is a privilege as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.189.179 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

The Second Amendment says nothing about concealed carry. The right to keep and bear arms is distinctly different from the right to keep and carry concealed weapons per state jurisprudence case law, at least in some states. See the state court section discussion in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article for the two distinctly different state interpretations on this (in Kentucky and Arkansas, for the two earliest trend-setting examples). In some jurisdictions, the Second Amendment right is interpreted as including the right to carry weapons concealed; it is not interpreted this way in other jurisdictions. Hence, the reason for the statement in the lead paragraph of the Carrying concealed weapon article for defining Carrying concealed weapon (CCW) as a privilege or right. In many states that currently grant CCW licenses, CCW is considered a privilege. Other states require no such license, recognizing CCW as being an inherent right of a citizen. Pick the right jurisdiction, and your interpretation will hold water; pick the wrong jurisdiction, and you will be imprisoned for a very, very long time. Yaf 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 163.153.22.20

Thank you for reporting 163.153.22.20 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) to WP:AIV. I see you characterized this as a vandalism-only account. Because IP adresses may be shared by multiple users, they do not qualify as vandalism-only accounts. They may still be blocked for committing vandalism after a recent warning. —dgies^t_c 17:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yaf 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks Yaf, for the Wiki help editing today. BruceHallman 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The socks

Thank you for helping out. The socks are also creating, and recreating, copyvio images see [Image:Pawlenty at N.I.C. mn.jpg] for example. Bridgeplayer 03:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unorganized militia

Yaf, I am reading the 1995 Spitzer book right now that indicates that the 'unorganized militia' is a distinction only that originated in 1903. Yet the "every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states" definition dates to the Militia Act of 1792. In short, I think these sections need some more attention to WP:ATT. BruceHallman 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're technically right. The militia types were all unorganized until 1903. Also, technically, the 'definition' you mention also included every white male, citizen or not. Foreign visitors could be part of the militia, too. More cites are needed; I agree. Yaf 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the WP:ATT on the definition of 'constitutional militia'? Thanks, BruceHallman 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to add a cite flag to this one... Yaf 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am presently reading that the correct term for the Militia from 1792 trough until 1903 was the Uniform Militia, as it was termed in the May 8, 1792 passage by Congress of the Militia Act of 1792. BruceHallman 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burnsvillemike

I should welcome your comments at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Burnsvillemike and the socks. Bridgeplayer 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to. By the way, I corrected the link to the archived discussion for the deletion of the page in question. We definitely need to put a stop to the sockpuppets that are intent on inserting vanity-page content again and again, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Yaf 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you get a moment you would look over the list of socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Burnsvillemike, 22 so far! Bridgeplayer 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)