User talk:Asams10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archiving old discussions from July 2005 to November 2006. Archive available here. --Asams10 02:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 "Consensus" does not give you Carte Blanche to delete entire sections of articles 2 Beretta Cx4 Storm 3 On AR-18... 4 Concerns about personal attacks 5 Selective fire vs. full-automatic fire on the AWB page 6 Your RfA 7 Request for Adminship 8 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] "Consensus" does not give you Carte Blanche to delete entire sections of articles

Whilst the consensus is indeed that "(Firearm) in Popular Culture" sections are to be avoided, this does not give you a free hand to delete everything related to firearms in popular culture in an article. Common courtesy would be to post something on the article's talk page first, to see if the section can't be re-written to fit in with the guidelines. Your dedication is admirable, but please tone back the zealousness a notch or two, and consider the contributions others can make to an article before arbitrarily deleting sizeable bits of it. --Commander Zulu 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was doing. These weren't edits, they were against Wikipedia standards for lists of trivia. This section was a GROSS violation. --Asams10 04:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That still isn't carte blanche to just delete them. You really should put something on the talk page, and leave it there for 24-48 hours to give people a chance to respond and comment. I consider most of the movie and video game stuff there to be substantive because the Lee-Enfield is so rarely seen in movies and video games. Like the Webley Revolver, it often stands in as a stereotypical "British Rifle", and the article needs to reflect that. I've re-written the "popular culture" section in the Lee-Enfield article now to bring it in line with the general consensus, FWIW. --Commander Zulu 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that any of them are substantive in their own right. I think a short blurb on the iconography of the Enfield as the stereotypical British Rifle would suffice, but as you said I'll bring it up in the Talk page. --Asams10 23:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beretta Cx4 Storm

Could use your help in helping resolve a dispute with the Beretta Cx4 Storm article. Thanks Yaf 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On AR-18...

...how did you get the format to fix?

I was looking, but I had to run out for a while.

Was it something in the infobox or something else?

Trial and error. I moved the picture down far into the text of the article. This allowed the text to flow like it should.--Asams10 00:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So it was the second picture... Got it. Thanks. Deathbunny 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about personal attacks

It's usually more effective to report concerns about personal attacks to the personal attack noticeboard, which is watched by several admins. FreplySpang 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I learn something new every day. Cool, thanks.--Asams10 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective fire vs. full-automatic fire on the AWB page

Just a quick question: What do you make of rifles like the M16A2, which are classified as assault rifles despite lacking full-automatic fire? - KingRaptor 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is capable of full-auto BURSTS. It's technically an assault rifle, but this is just a convention, not a rule. "Select-fire" is more narrow than "full-auto capable."--Asams10 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Asams10, I haven't commented in your RfA yet, but I wanted to recommend withdrawal to you here on your talk page. I'm not sure if you reviewed any of the previously failed RfAs, but when they go bad, they really go bad. It's like marinating your body in a vat of raw meat, then jumping into a cage of tigers that haven't been fed in 2 weeks. It gets ugly. Reviewing your edits, you seem to be a great contributor, but I don't see a need for the additional powers of adminship. I hope you'll continue contributing here without this RfA ruining the experience.

If I could make one other recommendation, it would be to apply for an Editor Review. It is a great way to get feedback on your contributions without the carnage of an RfA. AuburnPilot^talk 06:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Great points and I've already resigned that this is the way it was going to go after doing just what you suggested. I'm going to let it run its course. That may seem like an exercise in futility given that you just explained the process in unfavorable, but realistic terms. I would like to propose, however, that this process does tarnish the reputation of Wikipedia in that such a lashing as I've seen in other failed RfA's tends to imply that Wikipedia is, indeed, a cabal of like-minded individuals who, rather than being objective, are hell-bent on getting in the first, best stab. I compare them to Parliment or Congress. Perhaps a pack of hungry jackals feeding on the carcus of a proud beast. Each jackal is as distasteful and unnecessary as the next, but they continue to exist so long as there are... I digress. Thanks for the kind words. I'll grab the popcorn and watch myself get torn up.--Asams10 06:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Adminship

It is my regretful task to inform you that I have closed your request for adminship early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay (Talk) 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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