User talk:Solidpoint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 6.5 Grendel Images 3 Assault rifle 4 Dragon Skin 5 assault rifles 6 More Grendel Images 7 Grendel copyright troubles 8 my edits 9 Blocked for apparently making threats of violence against an editor 10 Appology to SwatJester 11 Request to be unblocked 12 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 13 Merry Christmas 14 Creating a cartridge infobox 15 .40 vs. .45 16 +P and +P+ ammunition 17 Spell checker

[edit] Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Eyrian 23:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6.5 Grendel Images

Solidpoint, you indicated that you created the images and charts you put at the bottom of the 6.5 Grendel article. Could you perhaps upload larger versions? Those are relatively difficult to read. Thanks for the great work on the article! --Eyrian 04:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assault rifle

The sentence you added was modified to make is more encyclopedic and placed under the subsection ===Body Armour===. 69.156.78.7 10:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

May I enquire why you would delete the well written cited and inter-wiki linked entry and replace it with the other entry ? Please respond here so we can reach a compromise, rather than having an edit war, thank you. 69.156.78.7 16:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Skin

I left you a message at Talk:Dragon Skin body armor. What do you think about the page as it stands now? --Eyrian 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] assault rifles

I've reverted the changes you made to Assault rifle. Please be advised that wikipedia is not an outlet for original research, and all material published must be verifiable, as per WP:V and WP:OR. If you wish to reinsert the material, you must provide reliable sources for the information. Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Thank you, ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read carefully the page on No Original Research and my graphic does not violate this. I have literally taken the Hodgdon reloading data, (or in the case of the 6.5 Grendel, Alexander Arms public domain reloading data cited on the 6.5 Grendel page, which AA has guaranteed will not exceed 50,000psi - the same pressure limit I used for Hodgden's loads) the Sierra ballistics data, plugged it into a ballistics calculator, cut and pasted the results into Excel and had it draw the graph.

There is nothing new or novel about the graph or ANY particular item on it and I am not drawing any novel conclusion beyond stating what the graph clearly shows for all to see. Anyone willing to invest a few hours can easily confirm these results as the extended discussion of the procedure and attendant comments on the 65Grendel.com site - which you seem desperate to deny exist - clearly demonstrate. The conclusion that the Grendel outperforms the 6.8 SPC has been made specifically by Stan Christ in the US Army's Infantry Magazine - a very widely published periodical. To quote:

The 6.8x43mm and 6.5x38mm are the most capable upgrades, but they are also the most expensive. The 6.8mm SPC would provide a substantial improvement in close combat capability, which was its stated design purpose. However, the streamlined projectiles fired by the 6.5mm Grendel deliver vastly superior all around performance, combining improved terminal effects with greatly enhanced capability to “reach out and touch someone” at long distance.

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/gunstuff/12_fa02.pdf

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1143&page=1&pp=30

Further, given his long list of published articles on small arms he qualifies as an expert, and thus his vetting of the methodology and results on the 65Grendel.com site constitutes an additional level of endorsement of the method and results. This endorsement is strengthened by it following almost immediately after his published work in Infantry Magazine on the 6.8, 6.5 Grendel and 5.8x42 Chinese round and so all of the facts in question were very fresh in his mind at the time his contributions to my graphic were made.

Further it was Stan who provided the source data from the best available western sources for the characteristics of the Chinese rounds precisely so they could be included in my graph. All of this directly supports the idea that the Grendel is presently the most powerful assault rifle cartridge in the world, not matter how much wishful thinking has been done by the 6.8 SPC crowd in the past.

I reject your assertion that an textual summary of what a graphic shows is new or novel in nature and constitutes Original Research. It is simply supporting in graphic form the conclusions others have reached and widely published over the last 6-8 months.

[edit] More Grendel Images

It looks like the main Grandel image is about to get axed (the one with the round comparison). Since you obviously have access to the physical ammunition, do you think you could take a similar photograph? Thanks! --Eyrian 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grendel copyright troubles

Solidpoint,

I'm taking a look at what's going on at the 6.5 Grendel page. I think if we can get some posts indicating that those individuals are licensing their contributions under the GFDL (preferably editing their posts to say so, if the forum allows it), we'll be in the clear. However, some of the deleted/citation tagged sentences really should be sourced. If you can link something indicating that (preferably from someone who is visibly an expert; I think some of the individuals on http://www.thehighroad.org/ might qualify for WP:RS#Self-published sources, but linking a static site like www.65grendel.com is much better), the tags can be removed.

Since I'm pretty good with wiki policies, I'd be happy to help you work through the red tape. Keep up the good work. --Eyrian 05:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my edits

My edits were in line with the most fundamental policies on wikipedia: Verifiability and No Original Research. I do not appreciate you referring to my edits as vandalism. You need to read the definition of vandalism at WP:VANDAL and the policy at Assume Good Faith. I will ask you to retract your comments on Talk:6.5 Grendel and your claims that I've been malicious, have a history of bad edits, and such, as I find such claims offensive and patently wrong. I have approximately 8000 edits on Wikipedia and I've never been blocked or warned: you are welcome to inspect my editing history. An apology would not hurt either. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for apparently making threats of violence against an editor

This forum thread has been highlighted on the administrator noticeboard. It appears to contain a specific threat of violence from you against another editor:

I will say this. When that asshole SwatJester crawls out of his mom's basement he better not cross my path or he'll be posting from the ER ward for awhile. That graphic represents more than 100 hours of work just on my end and a lot more from Stan and Mike and others. For destroying that kind of effort I'm perfectly happy to rearrange his dental work and significant parts of his skeleton.

This is extraordinarily inappropriate and I have temporarily blocked you from editing Wikipedia. Please explain here (you can still edit this talk page) exactly what you meant by this posting. We do not tolerate this sort of threat from any editor no matter what the real or perceived provocation. Unless there is a complete, meaningful retraction of this statement and an immediate unconditional apology to User:Swatjester I will extend this to an indefinite block. Wikipedia has no tolerance for this sort of threat. Thanks, Gwernol 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appology to SwatJester

My appologies for a breif laspe of control. Since I do not have any contact info for SwatJester I assumed this was understood to be an empty threat. In any case, I regret any concern caused by this statement. It is good to see that SwatJester has found his way to the 65Grendel site. Perhaps now he will find the references he so craves.

Solidpoint 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I followed the links on the talkpage and ended up at the 65grendel site, I then reposted your threat on the administrator talkboard, as you can see here --Charlesknight 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well. You will then note that as of 2:01pm today I deleted my threatening remarks and posted this appology?

Solidpoint 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was about to say, because I have not been on the 65grendel site, other than through searching for the copyright. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to be unblocked

I have removed and apologized for my poorly considered threatening remark and assure all that is quite out of character for me. I have posted almost 1,500 posts on the 65Grendel.com site, more than any other member there, and there are no other such threats made by me on any other post. Please also note the date and time of my being blocked on Wiki, which came much later than a 2nd 65Grendel post in which I wrote a very conciliatory letter Titled "Steady As She Goes".

I would hope the Wiki staff will review this incident in its full context and understand the degree of provocation SwatJester’s actions represent. Please realize that the 65 Grendel Wiki page was prepared for as well as we knew how and represents the very highest standard of intellectual generosity on the part of a very knowledgeable group attempting to enrich the Wiki Encyclopedia.

SwatJester's use of the Wiki legal apparatus to remove, block, revert and otherwise destroy content IN PREFERENCE TO helpful or instructive comments, any explanation of the legal requirements Wiki must enforce so they could be satisfied, any use of the talk page, participation in rounds of text revision, etc. to maintain or improve the content is in every sense vandalism and should warrant strong action on the part of the Wiki staff. It seems very clear to me and the others who built this page that there was no inclination to facilitate or compromise in SwatJester’s behavior. Instead, his behavior had but one purpose, to cause the maximum amount of damage to the site with no intention of helping resolve the issues he raised. So you have my apology, my retraction, and an explanation of context. Now you have a decision to make.

Vandalism

I appreciate the apology and have lifted your block.

However, I will ask you to stop attacking SWATJester. The only way you will be able to resolve this issue is by remaining civil and working to figure out how to work within Wikipedia's policies. Attacking those who are trying to ensure those policies are met is not the way forward here. Thanks, Gwernol 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Your points are well taken. As I think the discussion page here demonstrates, I am a fan of constructive criticism and concensus building in order to improve ideas and the general level of discourse. Solidpoint 00:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to review the policy of Assume good faith Solidpoint, before you continue to state what my intentions are. I could care less about 6.5 Grendel. Furthermore, I've carefully explained to you the legal requirements for Wikipedia as related to copyright, and the policy related to verifiability. I'm not sure what else you'd like me to do. I've done everything I can to show you how wikipedia works, yet you and your forum crew are continuing to refuse to work under wikipedia policies, starting with the WP:V and WP:OR policies, and then moving on to WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I'm more than happy to explain any aspect of wikipedia policy to you if you'd like, and I've already explained my actions, which were completely within policy, indeed they were enforcement of it. If you'd like me to explain something further to you, I will, but if not, you need to take Gwernol's advice. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Merry Christmas

Thanks for your kind note; it's been great collaborating with you. I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and the best of luck in all endeavors. --Eyrian 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a cartridge infobox

Hi Solidpoint! Looking over a lot of wiki articles on various cartridges, I thought it'd be neat to have an infobox to give people a lot of at-a-glance information about the particular round in question. The problem is determining what fields we should have to give a good high-level overview. Since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about this, I'd love it if you could comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force#Firearm cartridge infobox. Thanks a lot! --Eyrian 23:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .40 vs. .45

Did you look at Double Tap's 165 gr. .45 ACP loading? 643 ft lbs. out of a 5" barrel non +P load, vs. the 605 ft. lbs. from a 4.5" barrel. Given that we can each come up with loads to best the other, I think the best thing to do is just call it a tie... scot 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the Speer presentation for the .45 GAP, which had some interesting graphics concerning various handgun loads, to include .40 S&W, 10mm, .45 ACP, .45 GAP. The loads they showed, their own idea of typical, were all within 10% of each other. Therefore, I concur. They are about even. OT a bit. I also read where one of the gun rags shot the .45 GAP with 6 different loads. Five of the 6 they concluded were uncontrollable. My take on that was that high-pressue loads in large diameter bullets creates so much recoil as to be impossible to control. I concluded, based on these two items, that the true limit on a handgun is the operator's ability to control recoil, so go with the cartridge that gives you the highest round count and add weight to the gun if you feel you need higher energy loads. With all of the new pistols sporting Picatinny chins that is getting pretty easy to do. I'm looking at a combo flashlight and lazer for emergency ID and targeting myself. Trying to find a PX4 in 9mm is almost impossible. I may have to settle for another .40 S&W. Thanks for the cordial discussion. It was a pleasure. --Solidpoint 06:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, check out tactical light if you're looking into lights; I just expanded that last week. I think the gun mounted light is not really the best choice for a handgun, as you loose the flexibility of being able to target the light and gun independently. I put in some images from the USMC pistol marksmanship manual on shooting with a pistol and flaslight simultaneously, and if you've never tried it before, go pick up a cheap electric airsoft pistol and try it in a dark room. I prefer the cross-wrist hold, with a 1 watt LED light (or bigger) with a pushbutton tail switch. It's very easy to use the light in the left hand to search and locate the target, then bring the gun up in the right hand, lock the wrists together back to back, and fire. Laser sights I've decided are pretty worthless except for very specialized situations. In low light the don't illuminate the target, you just have a red dot in the dark, and a faint line running back to the sight--always struck me as a good "shoot me" sign. In daylight, the dot is washed out enough that it's harder to pick out than the sights. The one case I've seen where the laser was useful was piggybacked on a riflescope, so the laser they acted light a long range flashlight, spreading out to a decent diameter beam at 100 yards. In fact, if you want to experiment, you can get cheap tactical lights and lasers for airsoft pistols, and that also lets you practice things that would be really dangerous with a firearm, like shooting in the dark. scot 15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] +P and +P+ ammunition

Reguarding your comments on the .40 S&W +P loading from Buffalo Bore, I decided to work over the overpressure ammunition page and provide some examples of both SAAMI and non-SAAMI +P and +P+ cartridges (+P+ is a non-SAAMI term, but is used by major makers including Federal, though usually only on LEO ammo). I'd like to find more pressure info on the non-SAAMI +P and +P+ loads, but most small manufacturers don't have the ability to pressure test, and even those that do (like Federal, for the +P+ 9mm and .38 Spl.) don't necessarily publish their pressures. Have a look and see what you think. scot 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me think a bit and I'll have a stab at putting some burn rate stuff in the overpressure ammo article. Ping me about it in a couple of days if I haven't gotten around to it. scot 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, have a look. scot 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you copy the section to the the article's talk page and have at it, and let's see what we can work out. I've had quite a bit of ballistics experience, to the extent of reverse engineering my own internal and external ballistics simulation software a decade or so back, so I'm not sure I'd agree that I'm out of my depth. The point I'm trying to make is that pressure levels are highly dependent on many, many factors, and velocity or muzzle energy is only very loosely correlated to pressure levels; for example, Federal's +P+ 9mm Hydrashok load generates 1170 fps with a 124 grain bullet, and 6.4 grains of AA#2 will push a 125 grain bullet to 1200 fps in a standard load. Federal's load might run that high pressure because of a greater seating depth required by the bullet length or shape, or maybe it's got a harder crimp, or it uses thicker brass (less case capacity), or a more energetic primer, or maybe Federal beleives that a powder faster than AA#5 produces better results--maybe a lower muzzle pressure and less blast, or greater accuracy, for example. Even looking at the +P+ vs. standard pressure 9mm Federal load, there's only a 50 fps difference. I don't see why Federal would label it as +P+ unless it really was--+P+ will eat a Beretta 92 alive, as the Army proved with that NATO SMG ammo, so you've just eliminated any police departments using the Beretta, assuming they've got a clue. scot 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spell checker

Saw your Hagermanbot complaint. I might suggest Google Toolbar. Built-in spell checker. Checks my wikiedits nicely just before posting and I don't even have to cut and paste (assuming I click the check button before posting).

I do wonder how the bot would effect your cutting and pasting though. Are you posting, then checking, then correcting? If so, maybe the Preview button would be a better way to go rather then making several posts. No?—Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 09:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New versions of Firefox will also automatically check spelling. Misspelled words appear underlined in red automatically, just like in a word processor. --Eyrian 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)