User talk:Fluzwup

Archived information

See archives for older information:

• User talk:Fluzwup/Archive 1

External Ballistics

Thanks for getting back.

It was huge discussion on whether or not an ME163 (WW2 German rocket fighgther with 20mm cannon) could shoot itself down!

It all pivots on how fast the supersonic cannon shells slow down and what their trajectory would be, having been fired from a glider at 600mph.

So what I was looking for was not just abullet drop graph, but an explanation of how the flight of a shell changes. Presumably when supersonic it slows quite quickly, goes through an usntable zone at transition, then slows less at subsonic speeds.

But what would the speed versus time (or distance travelled) graphs really look like?

The ideal would be a drawing/graph of the full journey of a shell from being fired, to dropping under gravity alone, with asome sort of commentary explaining how it was behaving at each stage of its journey. Perhaps comparing a sesible raneg of projhectiles from a 14" battleship shell to a BB would be interesting as well. The article is very detailed (even a bit over my head) but it does focus almost enttirely on competition shooting.

The Yowser (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Clip vs. Magazine

I was wondering if you could FNORD chime in on the debate regarding the definition of a clip vs. a Magazine. I am looking for other firearms folks. The view at issue is that Clips are Magazines and the two editors for changing this are citing the dictionary. Don't know what your position is, but thanks for your help in advance. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scot. Just wanted to add a quick note here so that you are not given the wrong impression (if you don't read the whole discussion page on Clip vs. Magazine). The view is more complex and deeper than just 'citing a dictionary.' The concept is that, in common modern parlance, the terms magazines and clips are held as interchangable, in a similar way as the term FNORD 'record player' is interchangable with 'phonograph' -- such is not 'incorrect' in regards to the modern linguistic use. This is not about particular, historical technical definitions (or technical opinions) that either one person or a group may hold; it is about adding reasonable information to an article as per Wikipedia guidelines. I personally have no intent to remove any or all specific technical definitions that can be properly referenced, nor am I opposed to include any strongly held concensus views or debates regarding the modern technical definitions as opposed to the historical ones (we haven't reached the technical debates yet, and that is another story). This debate is one of both article robustness and insuring that the Wikipedia process of adding referenced, factual information to articles is not wrongly subverted by abuses of the system.CrimsonSage (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Got your note, thanks. It's good that we are in agreement that all uses should be included (that is the important point for this part of the discussion). Now, as far as the technical aspect is concerned (which, as I mentioned is a different debate), you mentioned to me that you feel what defines a magazine is the presence of a spring to feed the cartridges. Well, when we talk about the Lewis gun we say it has a drum magazine, but this magazine did not have such a spring, per se, and was driven by the operating mechanism (as you probably know, there was a spring within the cycle, but it was not technically part of the 'magazine' and was used in a different manner). Thus, it would be an incorrect technical definition to say that magazines are defined by the FNORD presence of a spring to feed the cartridges, unless you want to call the drum magazine on the lewis gun something else (although, it is generally called a drum magazine). So, if we want to be detailed technically, that specific technical definition does not hold for all guns.CrimsonSage (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading these weasel terms like, "in common modern parlance," "in regards to the modern linguistic use" and "This debate is one of both article robustness and insuring that the Wikipedia process of adding referenced, factual information to articles is not wrongly subverted by abuses of the system." You're going to have to buy into these statements for them to have any impact. You are saying a clip is a magazine, plain and simple. I am saying it's not. Muddy the watter all you want, the facts are still there. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Asamuel, if you want to say something to me, feel free to do it on my talk page. But in short, there is nothing weasel here. You really need to read the discussion pages and learn something about what is being said rather than assuming you already know. In essense, when I originally updated the page, you improperly used the revert in a way specifically against Wikipedia policy. Now, we have all spent this time and extra analysis coming full circle and have gathered a concensus that we will add all definitions (which is what I had intended originally). In addition, the technical definitions strongy FNORD support my view as they are not all in agreement (which was one of my points from the start). I'm not sure why you're are so hostile to everyone, but Wikipedia is not an 'argument forum.' You have a bad history of being blocked becuase you simply cannot work with others to reach higher levels of understanding. Really, it would be much better for you (and everyone else) if you would just listen and try to understand rather than just 'assuming' that you understand. You could at least try to gain a deeper view of what is being said, becuase then you could make a cogent argument to try and support your point -- but so far, you haven't done this.CrimsonSage (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"you improperly used the revert in a way specifically against Wikipedia policy." No, I didn't. I was removing disputed and incorrect content. "the technical definitions strongy support my view." No, they don't. You can't just say these things and make them true. "I'm not sure why you're are so hostile to everyone." I've got a low tolerance for what you are doing, but I'm not going to accept your accuastion that I am being hostile. I'm just a stickler for logic and reality; some don't share my standards. "You could at least try to gain a deeper view of what is being said, becuase then you could make a cogent argument to try and support your point." You made it clear that my point was worthless to you already.

Please feel free to take this to my talk page. Briefly, I don't feel you treated my contributions in 'good faith' through your series of reverts (you also exhibited an extremely hostile tone). Second, the 'expert' definitions FNORD presented do strongly support my overall viewpoint as demonstrated in the discussion. And third, I never saw your view as worthless, but I just don't fully agree with it; I tried several times to find language that would work for both of us but you just reverted everything. I actually think you would agree with my viewpoint if you bothered to think about it. Anyway, the next time someone makes a change, please try discussing it with them before you revert it.CrimsonSage (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, fluzwup, for walking on your page. Thought it was interesting that CS FNORD was making an attack against me on your page and then calling me hostile though. Sticks and stones. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ni! Ni! scot (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Magazine/Clip Refs

Fluzwup,

It seems as though you've already found a few additional references. As you know, I have noted a couple of other references in the discussion page earlier. If/when I come across others I'll place them on the Magazine discussion page. One particular reference (which I alredy placed in the discussion page but not in your new section) was a firearms glossary at COSCI, which states: 'see Magazine' for the entry of 'clip.' Basically, just another example of the same thing we've been rehashing.CrimsonSage (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

English translation of Minard's graph

Can't put it in now, as the page is protected, so I'm storing it here. From a Google translation of the French, edited by me...

Machine translation

Charles Minard card from 1869 showing losses in men, their movements and temperature during the Russian campaign of Napoleon. Lithograph, 62 x 30 cm.

Legend original: "Map figurative successive losses in men of the French army in the Russian campaign 1812-1813 Dressée by Mr. Minard, Inspector General of Roads and Bridges in retirement. Paris, November 20, 1869 The numbers of men presented by the width of a coloured areas because of a millimeter per ten thousand men and are more written across areas. The red means the men who come to Russia, the black people who leave. -- The information that has served a dresser map were drawn from the works of MM. Thiers, Ségur, Fezensac, Chambray and the unpublished diary of Jacob, pharmacist of the army since October 28. To better judge's eye reducing the army, I assumed that the body of Prince and Jerome Marshal Davoust who had been posted to Minsk and Mobilow and joined to Orscha and Witebsk, had always with the market 'army. " the scale is in league, a measure equal to 4444 km, and temperatures in degrees Réaumur, worth 1.25 degrees Celsius.

Cleaned up version

Charles Minard graph from 1869 showing losses in men, their movements and temperature during the Russian campaign of Napoleon. Lithograph, 62 x 30 cm.

Legend: "Map and chart showing successive losses in men of the French army in the Russian campaign 1812-1813. Designed by Mr. Minard, Inspector General of Roads and Bridges in retirement, Paris, November 20, 1869.

The numbers of men presented by the width of a colored areas in the scale of one millimeter per ten thousand men, and placed across the path. The brown path represents the number of men marching into Russia, the black path the men who leave. -- The graph is based on information taken from the works of MM. Thiers, Ségur, Fezensac, Chambray and the unpublished diary of Jacob, a pharmacist in the army since October 28. To simplify the graph, it is assumed that the body of Prince and Jerome Marshal Davoust, who had been posted to Minsk and Mobilow and joined at Orscha and Witebsk, had always with the main army."

The scale of the map is in leagues, and temperatures in degrees Réaumur, which are equal to 1.25 degrees Celsius.

Ballistics

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)

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)

---

I know of no "curving bullet” movie preview, but cinema is intended for entertainment and generally not for the serious study of anything.

1. True and adequately explained by you.

2. True and already explained in the article.

Bullets “follow” the wind. This is caused by drag that happens to have the same effect as if the wind would push sideward’s, so the more complex physical truth and most peoples intuitive idea will eventually give the same result.

Actually changes in wind velocity and direction during a rifle bullets flight (terrain induced changes can be quite radical) will affect its flight just as common intuition would indicate. I chose to keep my contributions to the article (Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia not a technical university library or an advanced course) as accessible as possible without math and opted not mention that.

3. True and explained in the long range section.

The external links provide sources for more study. Read Bryan Litz on gyroscopic drift and you will find out this is a rather subtle effect that is interesting for 1000 m/yd and further shooting, artillery, etc. Ruprecht Nennstiel also elaborates on 3 with appropriate drawings and the math behind it. Things like gyroscopic drift or a magical snap of the wrist during firing only action heroes can perform might be used in fiction to make people believe this can cause spectacular things like shooting around corners. Hollywood probably also made lots of people believe that getting hit by a fire arm can cause humans to fly backwards.

Modern (relatively long) rifle bullets have to be spun to travel downrange properly. When not adequately stabilized they start to tumble. Shooters will notice elongated (or in their slang keyhole) shaped instead of round holes imprints on paper when that occurs and the accuracy of fire goes south. Over stabilization is not desirable either. It makes bullets fly less efficient (they interact less easy with drag downrange). The simple rule to observe is to make bullets spin just as fast as needed to stabilize them at short range. I advise you to read http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/PDF/Kneubuehl.pdf and Nennstiel to get a better understanding. Then you will have understood the famous Greenhill formula is a rule of thumb. Doing experiments in front of a Doppler radar is often easier than resolving to number crunching on computers to optimize barrels and projectile combos.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

VB or V-B Grenades

May as well go ahead and post whatever version of the origin of "VB" you're comfortable with. After using your search and re-doing mine, I've found no less than four different versions of where it comes from, including two conflicting sources in French.

There's "viven-bessieres" [1], "vivien-bessieres" [2], "Vivien Bessieres" with no dash [3], and even the "Viven et Bessieres" that was originally posted. Most of the Google searches I did using "Vivien Bessieres" came up with the results I've linked to here, but if even the French can't agree on the source, I'm not going to sweat it.BHenry1969 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Slug Barrels

Not sure if I'm going about this the right way as it's my first time. I edited an article on shotguns and slug barrels adding;

Whilst not debating the legalities mentioned above it does confuse the history as the 'paradox' barrel of the 19th century was a smooth bored barrel of the type commonly used on shotguns but with the last six inches to the muzzle rifled - the paradox or issue there being that a barrel is both smoothly bored AND rifled. Hastings (an American firm that imports the barrels from France) has copyrighted the term 'Paradox' somehow, like copyrighting male, large, blue or any other adjective, and it is incorrectly used to refer to a completely rifled barrel.

you removed it, adding the explanation "correct but not cited, wrong tone". As I've said, this was my first time around so how do I see that you are a Wiki-moderator(?) or whatever and have the authority to decide correct vs incorrect? How do I distinguish between which statements of fact need to be cited and which don't? As for 'wrong tone', the paragraph was neither obscene nor abusive but if you believe that it was wrong I'm open for constructive critisism.

As I said, I couldn't establish how to PM this privately so I hope you'll pardon the public forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.150.240 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not an administrator, I'm just an editor who's got some experience. That puts us on even standing as far as authority goes, and the reason I reverted your edit was because I felt that it conflicted with the stated policies of Wikipedia. I'll explain why I felt this.

First, by policy here, there is no such thing as "statements of fact". Any statement by any editor can be challenged at any time, unless it is provided with a citation to a reliable source that can be used to verify that statement. For example, the statement about copyrighting "Paradox" being like copyrighting "blue" is, in my opinion, just your opinion. The reason I say this is because, for example, "blue" can and has been trademarked--see here for an example under US trademark law. In addition, "paradox" is trademarked, for various purposes, by many companies; see here for a list. Since this statement was something I considered incorrect, I thought it should be removed.

The other issue was the conversational tone of the edit. It was of the form of a rebuttal to an earlier section of the article, and while that that type of format would be suitable for some writing, such as an essay, it is a casual tone, not the formal tone suitable for an encyclopedia article. Note that while I did remove your edit, I later went in and added a mention of the partially rifled paradox barrels on early big game guns. I still don't have a good source, I need to dig through Google Books and find one.

I don't want to discourage you from editing; had there just been one issue with your edit I most likely would have just left it in place and corrected the issue. However, since it contained a number of problems, I thought it best to revert and add back in what I considered the most valuable portion of the change (see here for the before/after comparison). Frankly, the entire article is in need of work, as it cites no references at all, which makes it a poor article. If you'd like to work on the article, I'd be glad to help, just contact me here or on Talk:Slug barrel and we can talk about what needs to be done. scot (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing--the reason you couldn't send a private message (and don't worry, I have no hesitation to discuss things like this in public) is that you were not signed in and/or did not have a user account. You need to set up an account to have a User page, Talk page, and be able to send and receive e-mail from other users through Wikipedia. I encourage you to set up an account if you're going to edit or even discuss pages; right now I have no way at all of contacting you other than hoping you read this page. One other reason I reverted your changes rather than discussing it first, was that you edited as an anonymous user, so I had no way of discussing the issue with you first. With a user account, I could have posted to your user page and pointed out the issues and and worked with you on getting things fixed to our mutual satisfaction. scot (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Scot that lays it out for me, I appreciate your response and value your opinion, Cheers Oz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.175.241 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Gas Operated (References)

Reply to the post you placed on my talk page.

Can't get the primary texts to a book scanner, and I'm not slapping these texts on flat bed scanner and damaging the spines. Most of these books are old, out of print, and expensive.

Luckily, the ones I have inserted cites for into the article are readily available, either as scanned images online, or through public libraries (may require inter-library loan if it's a small library). In the discussion page, I have cited by page number -- but the sheer number of cites from the same works that ALL come back to supporting two paragraphs woul simply clog the article into illegibility if added inline. Accordingly, they are added to the section title as general references.

Two years ago, one user added a section on piston system definitions with unsourced definitions. He later added source cites -- but one link iss dead, one link was off-topic (concerned automobile engines, not guns), and one source (later added by another editor) didn't support the assertion (it contradicted it). In short, the assertion was still unsourced.

The current kerfluffle is much the same way -- unsourced assertions from an editor who has:

1. Challenged my literacy or my integrity, by insisting that the sources I offered didn't support my assertions.

2. Challenged my professional qualifications (not that they would be relevant, but I went ahead and complied, as he asked).

3. Engaged in personal attacks against 3rd parties wholly unrelated to the argument at hand. (Frankly, Mikhail Kalashnikov may well be a drunk, braggart, and liar n his personal life. He could well shoot smack while tossing kittens into a fireplace for all I know. And this is relevant to his engineering capability and qualifications to describe his own invention, how? [smile])

4. When actually provided quotes, with page number cites from the sources he had earlier claimed did not support my assertions, he turned around and started insisting that the sources were unreliable. (He has yet to provide ANY sources of his own that support his claims, however. . . )

5. When provided quotes from his own sources, that contradicted his claims (falsifiying your sources or claiming that they say one thing when they say another is reprehensible), he ignored them, and claimed to be too busy to read.

6. Continues to make a factually false (mechanically impossible, as can be verified by simply looking at the drawings) assertion to support his unsourced opinion (effectively engaging in simultaneous "original research" and research fraud), and ignoring the fact that, even if his assertion as to teh mechanics of his example were true, it would not change the fact that his technical definition is not support by the reputable sources anywhere.

7. Continues to revert sourced material to an unsourced version that corresponds with his opinion.

This "controversy" isn't actually a controversy -- it is a fringe minority opinion that doesn't even have UNreliable sources versus the standard technical references for the field in question.

Geodkyt (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Kwäday Dän Ts’ìnchi

On 30 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kwäday Dän Ts’ìnchi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hollow point bullet animation

Diagonals or straight back?

Great start on the hollow point bullet animation. I think the fundamental concept of the bullet staying centered in the picture, with the background moving, is perfectly fine. Suggestions:

• I'm not sure the "wake" of the bullet is accurate. Wouldn't the "wake" (I wonder what the technical term for this might be) extend straight behind the uppermost and bottommost points of the bullet, rather than extending in a diagonal line like the wake of a boat? If not, then toward the end of your animation the wake should continue to stay diagonal rather than changing to straight-back, correct?

• I do think that putting a texture on the background to show the scrolling better would help the image a lot.

Thanks! I like it! I think it'll clarify the article quite a bit. Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. I was thinking the same thing as I read your response - the wide shot will probably illustrate this better. Tempshill (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great data. Yes, it's pretty clear that the wide shot would be a lot more illustrative. Especially if you were to show the temporary cavity contracting back into place - though to be accurate it might be difficult to find high-speed movies of how quickly the contraction occurs. Tempshill (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the only problem with the new animation is that so much of the animation is about the temporary cavities that the role of the hollow point isn't front and center. What would be ideal, and the most time consuming thing, would be to have side-by-side illustrations of hollow-point versus a regular bullet, to show the impact (ho ho) that the hollow point has on the target. Otherwise - great animation, only other request is to slow it down and add lots more frames (also time consuming of course). Tempshill (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Barbecue in the United States Article

I congratulate you on the fantastic job setting up this article - it was sorely needed. Both the original barbecue article and the regional variations of barbecue article had become bogged down by people who don't understant that Barbecue" is most likely derived from a Taino Indian word, and really should be restricted to the interrelated traditions for outdoor smoking of meat that predominate in parts of the Caribbean, Northern Mexico, and the Southern US. There is a need to make a distinction between things which have come to be casually called "barbecue" after the advent of Mass Culture, versus foods which were traditionally called "barbecue" before that. The latter foods constitute a distinct and legitimate foodways that is, for the most part, limited to the southeast quarter of the United States, with related "barbecoa" traditions in parts of Mexico and some Caribbean Islands. These foodways are not just a way of preparing meat, they have traditionally been an important cultural and social institution in the aforementioned areas, and have a legitimate right to be the centerpiece of discussion of barbecue as a foodways, not just a casual mention.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Fmfrp 12 80 p69.png

File:Fmfrp 12 80 p69.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Fmfrp 12 80 p69.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Fmfrp 12 80 p69.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Winchester Model 94

John Browning article,

you wrote about a Winchester Photo:

This is almost certainly not a Winchester rifle--definitely not a model 1894; the Winchester lever action rifles seem to all have had straight-grip stocks until the 1920s, when the Model 53 was introduced. So far, the only lever action rifle with a pistol grip stock in .30-30 I can find is the Marlin 1893; "28-32 in. round or octagonal barrels, 10 shot tube mag, straight or pistol grip stock. Mfg. 1893-1936". My blue book doesn't explicitly state that the Winchester model 1892 had a straight grip stock, but all the pictures I've seen have one, and the only .30-ish caliber it was available in was .32-20, a much smaller round. The .30-30 is actually pretty uncommon in the early Winchester lever actions, appearing only in the 1894 variants until the Model 55 came out in 1924. scot 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC):Information on Marlin and Winchester lever action rifles is taken from the Blue Book of Gun Values, S. P. Fjestad, 13th Edition. Current edition available from Blue Book Publications, Inc. scot 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected it. It’s a late Winchester takedown deluxe Model 94 rifle.-- hmaag (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Heinlein and Superguns

Re this comment of yours at ram accelerator talk page:

I might be reading too much into Heinlein's gun in "If this goes on-", as there had been attempts to make staged guns in the 1940s, but I think that the description he used doesn't rule out a ram accelerator, and certainly the ram accelerator would achieve the same goal--the maximum energy possible from a kinetic energy projectile.

did you come to any conclusion? As you might guess from my user page, my interest in this is more-than-idle. I've founded various supergun-unto-orbit ideas weaving in and out of fiction, science and technology. There's even a hint that H.G. Wells knew of light gas gun concepts by the time he wrote War of the Worlds. Any pointers you have, much appreciated. Yakushima (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of graph in Internal ballistics of NATO round simulation

Hello, I was wondering the origin of the graph found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Int_bal_graph.png of the NATO bullet simulation. I was wondering what software or algorithms were used to generate it.

Thanks! Gsonnenf (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Terminal ballistics

Looks like you left the article before it was finished. You need to add references for all the stuff you wrote. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Glossary of firearms terminology

Hey there - long time no talk. Just thought you'd be interested to know that I did a bunch of expansion on Glossary of firearms terminology. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Fluzwup! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Wax bullet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grease (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) 11:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Target sight pictures.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Target sight pictures.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Enhanced contrast open sights.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Enhanced contrast open sights.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Fast Draw

You wrote in the article Fast Draw that the average human reaction time is between 0.2 and 0.25 seconds. Can I ask you what your source for this was? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Beef Jerky label.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beef Jerky label.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Blade runner special ed layout.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Cartridge grid.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Limp wristing

It looks like you're inactive, but I'll go ahead and post here anyway in case you return or in case someone else sees this. Limp wristing is a fairly long article you wrote without any sources. Do you know of sources we could use for it? Rezin (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Blade runner special ed layout.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blade runner special ed layout.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Scot: I was reading the .45-70 entry & saw the chart you created. The ballistic tracks look to be the right shape for the respective rounds, but shouldn't the Y-axis be stated as elevation in inches, not yards? I may be wrong, but I don't think so. I don't presently own a .308/7.62x51, but I do shoot a 7.92x57mm. Its ballistics are closer to the .30-06 than to the .308, but I can't believe that either rises nearly 18 yards, or 50 feet, at 1 km. I may be entirely wrong: I have no way of tracking how high the round might be at various distances unless I go to a cliff & shoot at increasing ranges. If I'm wrong, my apologies. Thanks. Vkt183 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Cellphone holster2.jpg

The file File:Cellphone holster2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned personal image, no foreseeable use

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. Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fluzwup. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Covert firearms.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Covert firearms.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Tasco PDP2.png

The file File:Tasco PDP2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Red dot sight principle.png

The file File:Red dot sight principle.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:NACA 0012.jpg

The file File:NACA 0012.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use, low quality

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.

Also:

• File:NACA 2312.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Patent 6752062 fig 9 vias quiet muzzle brake.jpg

The file File:Patent 6752062 fig 9 vias quiet muzzle brake.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Inclined rig

The article Inclined rig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

dictionary definition WP:NOTDIC

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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. rsjaffetalk 23:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Your file Speed-length_vs_weight-resistance.gif

I've been working with the data you used to create the subject plot (from the Savitsky paper) but I'm confused by the resistance-weight ratio and hoping that you can provide some insight. In the paper (and elsewhere), the resistance-weight ratio is defined as R_t/Δ but Savitsky (and others) don't make clear what units are used. I began by assuming American units (lbf/lbm) but the resulting resistance values seemed low. However, assuming metric units (N/kg) gives even lower resistance. I thought perhaps the ratio is made dimensionless by applying g (gravitational acceleration)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedd (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of .17 Rimfire for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article .17 Rimfire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.17 Rimfire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mdewman6 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Target sight pictures.png

The file File:Target sight pictures.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, superseded by File:Target sight pictures.svg.

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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Target sight pictures.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Target sight pictures.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Polygonal vs normal rifling.gif

The file File:Polygonal vs normal rifling.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, superseded by File:Polygonal vs normal rifling.svg.

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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zytel

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of being notables. Refs are routine product listings. Fails WP:SIRS. Brochure article.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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. scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)