User talk:Yaf/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Yaf/Archive 1, 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:

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:
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

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

The article Assault rifle, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[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

Thanks for contributing to my RfA! 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 • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • 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. —dgiestc 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)

[edit] Culture war reversions - don't want to get into a revert war

I attempted to create a more NPOV-compliant opening sentence which addressed the fact that many people think the whole thing is more or less fictitious, or vastly exaggerated by those who profit from it (at least psychologically). My effort has been reverted by you without comment. Could you address this on the article's talk page, as procedure suggests, so we don't get an edit war going? --Orange Mike 15:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have commented on article's talk page. Yaf 16:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashcroft memorandum, August 24, 2004

Reading the Ashcroft USDOJ 8/24/04 memorandum[2], I regret that I must say that I don't see it as meeting WP:ATT. It is an obvious political document, and fails in this regard: "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". Please read this analysis of the memorandum[3]. Specifically the truism: "The Supreme Court alone has the final, official word on what the language of the Constitution actually means and how it should be applied." When John Ashcroft disagrees with the Supreme Court, as he does in his memorandum, the Supreme Court prevails. At the least, the use of the Ashcroft memorandum in an encyclopedia should make clear his lack of authority over the court and the Constitution. SaltyBoatr 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The VPC is hardly a neutral bystander :-) As for the opinions of academic bodies, there are many in the academic and legal communities who do agree with Ashcroft, but these sources are not cited by the VPC, of course, in its criticisms of Ashcroft. Parker of course, does seem to agree with Ashcroft. Still, there are two prevailing views, both with significant and sizeable numbers of adherents. To selectively cite only one side, such as the VPC does, is not only a false approach, it is also not NPOV. I favor the clarification that the SCOTUS has the final say, but, in the absence of any significant rulings since Miller, we should nonetheless include Ashcroft's memo and add words to the effect that the SCOTUS has the ultimate say (until, of course, the People have their say :-) What is the old quote..., there are three boxes at issue here; the soap box, the ballot box, and the ammo box. :-) By the way, glad to see you didn't retire from WP, but instead changed your "handle" :-) Yaf 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Four boxes: Soap, Ballot, Ammo, Jury. I would object to hanging a "SCOTUS has the final say" disclaimer off of every mention of the DOJ memo. We could just as well hand such a disclaimer off every opinion of the NRA, VPC, Brady, Spitzer, etc, etc, etc. - O^O 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but don't forget that in US v. Miller, the defense was absent (dead, as I recall) at time of trial, leaving only the prosecution to present the very one sided case to the court. After all, the short barrelled shotgun has been in continuous use by the military since the 1860s (see the LeMat revolver for one undeniable example), and before that point the standard infantry weapon was a .69ish caliber smoothbore, i.e. a 12-14 gauge shotgun, firing either round balls or buck and ball, with various short versions in use by cavalry. The SCOTUS in Miller implicitly confirmed that the 2nd protected an individual right--the point in question was not could Miller have a firearm, but rather what kind he could have. The prosecution's argument was that only military weapons were protected; by this token the bolt action hunting rifle the liberals keep saying they don't want to take away is NOT protected, while machine guns, rocket launchers and the like ARE... scot 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Although some may see it your way, it is a stretch to say that even if the courts embraced the second amendment as protecting an individual right to keep militia arms, that they would go as far as to include rocket launchers. I know of no military (particularly our own) that equips every infantryman with a rocket launcher. That would presumably be seen as a squad arm, and it is somewhat of a strawman argument to expect that the protection of the second would extend to all conceivable arms. - O^O 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yaf wrote: "...there are many in the academic and legal communities who do agree with Ashcroft". Then why didn't you use those citations? I challenge you to use the academic and legal citations that you described, which comply with WP:ATT, as opposed to the obviously political Ashcroft memo which I argue does not meet WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 16:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunpowder/Blackpowder

Hi Yaf, Thanks for your comment in the talk page of Blackpowder. I knew the USA did not like nitroglycerine (UK spelling), hence you tended to use single-base propellant rather than double-base propellant (e.g. Cordite); but I didn't know you were still using blackpowder and that your description of gunpowder included both blackpowder and smokeless powder. Now that I know gunpowder means different things to the USA and the UK, I'll rethink my merger proposals.Pyrotec

[edit] Minor edits

Hey Yaf, I've noticed on many edits you've made to the Nancy Pelosi and Logan Act articles that you mark almost every edit you make with the "minor edit" tag. It's only meant for typos and such, not any changes that affect the content of the article — see [4]. Thanks, Dce7 07:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yaf 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your recent edit to Gun politics in the United States

I am reading page one of the Spitzer book[5] about the core role of government being to establish and maintain public order, and I also appreciate the ambiguous data that gun regulations are and/or are not effective. Yet, I see these as two distinct issues and hope to tweak your wording to communicate both. In short can the wording include both the premise that a key role of government is 'to establish and maintain order' (out of anarchy), and also be neutral the wording about the effectiveness of that public policy? I believe that, with credible attribution, I have shown that a central role of government is to establish and maintain order, and that this principle lies at the heart of gun politics. I am willing to include extensive credible coverage about the ineffectiveness (and effectiveness) of the public policy. Another way to see this, is that gun related public policy on both sides (and the politics) are at least well intended. SaltyBoatr 16:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the core roles of Government is to establish and maintain public order; another is to provide for the common defense, along with an assortment of other governmental roles, many of which I would argue have nothing to do with Gun politics in the United States. The lede should focus on the issue at hand, namely Government's role in regulating firearms related to Gun politics, not an unrelated purpose to establish and maintain public order to avoid anarchy. This is especially important since the article is not about avoiding anarchy. Yaf
Perhaps you don't understand me. The point I am interested in including in the second sentence of the into, is the same point made by Robert Spitzer on page 1 of his book The Politics of Gun Control. I believe that we agree that this book is pertinent and credible per WP:ATT.
I also acknowledge that the 'maintain order' concept is one POV, but the second sentence is presented as a dualism, one POV versus the other POV. The key word in the sentence is 'versus'. You appear to be insisting to frame both points of view favorable to your own personal bias, and this I see as a non-neutral way to edit this dualistic sentence. I do not maintain the article is about avoiding anarchy. I maintain the article is about gun politics, and I have shown that the central concept of the 'gun control' political POV is to 'maintain order' and have provided a credible citation. If you do not understand me now, please inquire.
I ask that you explain your objection further because you have not explained sufficiently how the gun control POV is characterized as you claim as having an unrelated purpose to establish and maintain public order. Yourt thought appears to be original research and off base. I see that scholars agree that both the 1934 and the 1968 gun acts were politically motivated as attempts to use firearm regulation to maintain public order in response to public outrage at gangsters using firearms in crime in 1934, and public outrage at assassination by firearms in 1968. Ditto for the New York law in 1911.
I accept your statement that one of the core roles of Government is to establish and maintain public order; another is to provide for the common defense; I disagree when you use fallacious logical analogy with an assortment of other governmental roles to imply these two roles are unrelated to gun politics. Both these roles are closely related to gun politics as I have demonstrated with credible attribution. SaltyBoatr 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The book is pertinent, but is but one POV, in ascribing "maintain order" as being the heart and soul of gun politics. I don't see the dualism for which you argue as being the central core and sole part of "Gun politics in the United States". It is but one POV and assumes that the central concept of 'gun politics' is to 'maintain order'. This may be the central concept for "gun control" related sub-topics, but it is not the central concept for "gun rights" related sub-topics that are also contained in "Gun Politics in the United States". Since this article is not solely about gun control, but is about "Gun Politics", a decidely neutral point of view labeling, I might add, the article should include both "gun control" and "gun rights" POVs, and hence the POV for the article needs to cover both "gun control" and "gun rights" issues, even in the lede.
An equally valid POV, suitable for the lede, by the same type of thought, is that the core role of Government is to provide for the "Common Defence", through enabling the arming of the militia and individual citizens for achieving a means of defense against enemies, foreign and domestic. If only this POV appeared, I think it likely that you would object to this being stated as being the central core and sole reason for the Government's position, similar to my objection that stating "maintain order" is not the sole Government position, either, despite the same construct of dualism which you are trying to construct.
The argument that the sole reason for the 1934 NFA was to maintain order has been stated by some to be fallacious, as there were numerous 'Revenuers' who were about to be without a job during the Great Depression, and the end of prohibition had largely put them nearing the unemployment line, while the end of prohibition had also already ended the mobster era use of .45 ACP Tommy Guns for which, by your line of thought, the 1934 NFA was solely intended to address. The passage of the 1934 NFA could just as easily be stated to be intended for keeping 'Revenuers' employed as for 'maintaining order'.
If you go back and re-read my comments, I don't state that gun control is an unrelated purpose to establish and maintain public order, only that the core role of Government in dualism against the rights of a citizen relative to "Gun politics" is not solely to "maintain order". There are many other roles, some of which are unrelated to Gun politics and some of which are peripherally related to Gun politics that could equally be included as representative for the reason for the Government's position relative to regulating firearms. Commerce, maintaining domestic manufacturers, supporting political pork to particular districts, etc.; all are potential reasons for various parts of various gun regulation legislation. Picking but a single role of Government and ascribing it solely to one side of the dualism which you are attempting to build is decidely very POV, and is a synthesis, i.e., WP:SYNT, that goes way beyond the reference which you cite.
Hence, I edited the lede to state not one of potentially many reasons for the Government's side, along a continuum of governmental purposes, but, instead, I attempted to focus on the true core of the Government's side of the issue, namely the regulation of firearms, for whatever reasons the Government believes are related to Gun politics. This is a neutral point of view, relative to the many sides of Gun politics, for the governmental position, instead of making a rather selective assumption that it is solely about the Government's wish to "maintain order". Yaf 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Your latest edit is better, thank you very much. Also, your explanation is helpful. Can you give attribution for "...provide for the common defense..." in the context of gun politics? Thanks in advance. (BTW, if there is synthesis, it is Spitzer's not mine, therefore not original research. Indeed, I am willing to lift his wording verbatim, using a Fair Use rational if that would help.) SaltyBoatr 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The rational for the Government to "provide for the common defence" (as well as "to ensure domestic tranquility" which is just another way to state to "maintain order") both come from the opening line of the US Constitution and are commonly tied to gun politics. Both are duties of the Government. [6] If we need to find a reference for both of them that ties them specifically to gun politics, I suppose we can. (This comes close; you can do a search on "common defense".[7]) Yaf 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Idaho Law Review meets WP:ATT, but the usage is on the wrong side of the 'versus' in the dualistic sentence. The second sentence of the intro, I think, needs to concisely describe the central elements of the two sides of the political debate. One side's ideas versus the other side's. I cannot think of credible attribution that says the 'gun control' side of the debate argues the 'common defense' argument. Suggested wording here:[8] SaltyBoatr 15:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Yaf 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contrary view on Parker

Yaf, I am confused about this article which describes issues with Parker that I have not read before. I am curious about your opinion of these issues: 1) That the NRA actually seeks to make Parker moot; the NRA pushed legislation that by-passed the ordinary procedures of Congress and sought to repeal the D.C. statutes that banned the private possession of firearms, thus mooting Parker: And 2) That the plaintiffs asked for registration of firearms as a remedy; in Parker, the plaintiffs asked for and the Court upheld registration. Both these seem contrary to 99% of the other Parker articles one sees on the blogs. And, I am curious if you confirm that the NRA is torn strategically over appealing Parker. SaltyBoatr 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Have been following this dilemma with interest. Although it is not politically correct to say so, I suspect that the real issue is that we are only seeing obliquely the real issue, namely, the continued powerful existence of the NRA. If the SCOTUS rules Parker valid on 2A grounds, then much of the reason for the NRA likely goes away. On the other hand, if Parker becomes moot, then it is business as usual at the NRA. My sources indicate that the NRA leadership is definitely torn strategically on this; also, the same sources indicate that the GOA may end up as the ultimate winner if this doesn't play out exactly like the NRA wants it to. GOA opposes gun registration of any kind; however, the NRA has hinted several times with Congress that they would not oppose gun registration, while not mentioning this in their own publications for fear of losing membership to GOA. We definitely live in interesting times. Yaf 04:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Wikipedia is Not

I don't care if you're a gun fanboy or just do not understand what Wikipedia's about. However the part you're reverting which I removed from Carrying concealed weapon, clearly violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Read: Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. I'm removing it once more; if you have common sense, you will let me. I hope that this is just a misunderstanding. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Have moved discussion to talk page for Carrying concealed weapon, where it belongs. Yaf 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I created the RfC: as you're basically the dissenting opinion be sure to list it. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Have responded with my comment and vote on the RfC regarding deletion of the Carrying concealed weapon#Weapon choices for concealed carry section of the CCW article. Thank you. Yaf 04:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Appreciate it with the Glock article, seems im now battling 3 or 4 sock puppets of one person who all want the VA tech stuff added to the glock page and other gun pages.

CINEGroup 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you retired from Wikipedia. Yaf 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Yaf. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. Since you voted oppose on my first RFA, it's good to see that I'm definitely improving a little. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I am well aware of that stupid rule. That was my last edit. Alyeska 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your resignation from the Project

I'm sorry to see you go Yaf, I hope once things quiet down some you might consider rejoining the project. Once again, I'm sorry to see you go.--LWF 17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly count myself as pro-gun in any form, but I sympathize with your problems. Just because someone was killed with a gun does not a notable fact make. I'm going to continue working on Concealed Carry in the United States; whether or not I believe in it, I'd like to turn it into a better article. I hope these experiences don't put you off editing Wikipedia entirely. Good day, Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walther P22 dispute

An article which you have edited, Talk:Walther P22#Request for Comment: Walther P22 – is involved in a dispute requiring inputs from editors to develop a consensus for editors to follow on whether or not mention of the Virginia Tech Massacre should be mentioned in the firearm article, or if mention in the VT Massacre article of the firearms used, with a link back to the Walther P22 article, is adequate. Thank you. Yaf 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice - despite our disagreement, it's very honourable of you. Nfitz 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walther P22 and Glock 19

Yaf--I was under the impression that we reached a compromise in the Walther 22 and Glock 19 articles to mention the VT massacre in the "See also" section. It appears that this debate is starting all over again. Since you have some history with these articles, can you weigh in? MiFeinberg 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to have a look in on Talk:Walther P22 again. Griot has canvassed only those users who want to keep the VT mention in the article, so I am alerting those who were not yet contacted. There has been discussion on WP:ANI about the outcome of the previous polls. Your continued involvement in the discussion(s) would be welcomed. ··coelacan 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federal assault weapons ban

Careful, you are getting out of line with your massive inclusions of what you surmise the measure would include. For example, 19th century muzzleloaders? For one thing they would be excluded because they are antiques, for another the bill excludes anything that is suitable for sporting purposes. Lets stick to the facts, ok? (the preceeding was added by 199.125.109.121 27 April 2007)

The quote for what the new Federal assault weapons ban 2007 bill would cover comes direct from the Government website for H.R. 1022. It clearly states what is covered. As presently written, the bill includes semiautomatic rifles. It includes shotguns. It includes any firearm ever procured by any Federal law enforcement agency, or military branch, which covers almost everything, including even 18th Century firearms, which until now have been under antique firearms legislation rules. The bill also states that the definition of sporting purpose is up to the Attorney General, and has nothing to do with how suitable a firearm actually is for sporting purposes. These are the facts. Yaf 01:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rejoining the Firearms project

Yaf, I would like to formally reinvite you back to the project. The debate that sparked your resignation seems to have died, and some work has been made towards establishing criteria for inclusion. If you would please consider my offer I would be very grateful. LWF 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The few weeks away were just what I needed. Yaf 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!--LWF 22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Ferguson

You can't say "vast majority of US psychiatrists living", or "It was pretty clear", unless you have the statistics to back it up. Those are totally peacock words. --Knulclunk 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thought I had deleted it, but I evidently accidently reverted your deletion, instead. Guess the server was running behind. Sorry. Yaf 05:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it. :)
--Knulclunk 11:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caliber/gauge conversions

Welcome back! Check out my comments on Talk:Caliber conversion sleeve. It's a solid start, but I think it needs to be split up into up to 4 sections, covering:

  • Partial chamber inserts, such as .30-06 to .308
  • Full chamber inserts, such as .223 Rem. to .22 LR, or .308 Win. to .32 ACP
  • Barrelled inserts, such as .22 LR in just about anything .30 caliber and over
  • Shotgun inserts, both chamber and full length

What do you think? scot 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi scot, thanks! Yes, I think we should expand the article to include the other inserts. BTW, have been busy with a Colt Navy replica, in developing a better understanding necessary for writing more black powder content, especially with regards to black powder substitutes, and also an article on paper cartridges. (Recently picked up some "salt petre" for doing the paper cartridges in 19th Century style :-) Am getting close to being able to write these. Yaf 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I decided the easiest thing to do was to back up what was there onto the talk page, and start with a clean slate. Feel free to move anything from the old article back into the new one. scot 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] primary source citation

In your edit last year you used a primary source for your citation. Because, per WP:NOR we should predominately rely upon secondary sources, I wonder if you could please, (when you find it convenient), re-cite this using a credible secondary source for the citation? Thanks in advance. SaltyBoatr 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for eavesdropping on this, but Yaf is on my watchlist... Looking at the edit in question, it looks as though Yaf is quoting the a 5th circuit court of appeals decision, and in fact using it as a secondary source. It says that many times the use of the phrase "bear arms" is used in a way not related to military service, basing this on various state constitutions (which are the primary sources in this case). Now if he'd said that, for example, that
The phrase "bear arms" is used in a nonmilitary sense; for example the Oklahoma state constitution says The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons
then the statement as a whole is a synthesis. Quoting the 5th circuit court of appeals saying the same thing, though, is letting THEM do the synthesis, which is one of the points of using secondary sources. scot 20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
scot is right; this usage is as a secondary source, relative to the state constitutions, which are the primary sources. Were I quoting the 5th circuit directly relative to their own dicta, to support a decision of the 5th circuit, then this would have been a primary source. However, the 5th circuit is functioning as a secondary source to the state constitutions here. Unless tertiary sources are now needed, it looks like a valid expression of the WP:NOR and preferred reliance on secondary sources policies to me, too. (Thanks, scot.) Yaf 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You two may agree, but per Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material (second paragraph) "historical documents (of) ... trials" are primary sources. If your 'bear arms' edit is mainstream, a credible secondary source should be easy to find. SaltyBoatr 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Only when used as sources themselves to their rulings. When used as a secondary source, such as here, relative to the true primary sources, i.e., state constitutions (which are also historical documents) there should be no issue. I don't see the necessity here to find what is, in essence, a tertiary source. Yaf 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with a 'Only when...' rational that the opinion of the court serves a secondary source. It is, after all, opinion.
Well, to an extent. US v. Miller was of the opinion (demonstrably false) that short barreled shotguns were not suitable for military use. While this is just an opinion, if I saw off the barrel of my shotgun, I still get arrested. Opinions of courts are the law of the land, which makes them weightier than normal opinions... scot 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine, weightier opinions certainly would have more attention, and therefore more secondary sources. Use those secondary sources please. SaltyBoatr 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we simply sidestep and avoid fighting over this? It seems it should be easy for you to find an agreeable and credible secondary source for your edit. If you could do this please, we could easily avoid a conflict. SaltyBoatr 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is a similar analysis, comparing state constitutional rights to bear arms, sorted by date: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm. Many explicitly point out "defense of themselves and the state", as opposed to "common defense" or just "defense of the state", indicating an explicit protection of individual rights, and some of these date back to BEFORE the US constitution, and go all the way up to the present; my favorite is the 1907 Oklahoma constitution, which unambiguously reads "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons." The same UCLA source also quotes the states demanding a bill of rights, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/ratify.htm, which is, if you will, a secondary source to the US constitution. scot 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not inventing new Wikipedia policy about secondary sources, and neither should you. SaltyBoatr 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, both of those Volokh citations appear to be unpublished, and therefore not qualifying as 'most credible' per WP:ATT. Can we agree to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy? I commit to do so, I hope you do so too. SaltyBoatr 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It is published, on the UCLA website, and portions are also published in print form; from his list of publications: "Sources on the Second Amendment and State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, a Web site. State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, reprinted in The Political Junkie Handbook 285 (Michael Crane ed. 2004); also available sorted by date." As for credibility, "Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, criminal law, copyright law, the law of government and religion, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy at UCLA Law School. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit." Now I will admit that some of the information linked therein is self published. However, WP:ATT states:

Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are two exceptions:

{snip)

2. Professional self-published sources

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications.
So while Volokh's site is arguably self published (that distinction being whether you think the http://www.law.ucla.edu domain is an "organization that provides little or no editorial oversight"), he's working in his field of expertise (he is a law professor at a widely known university), and he has had a large number of publications published by reliable, third party publications (see http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/ for a list). scot 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in debate with you on Yaf's user page.

I asked Yaf a question, and still waiting for an answer. Asking again: Yaf, will you please find an alternate agreeable secondary source for your edit from last year? SaltyBoatr 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to, as this is a reliable secondary source, meeting WP:ATT. Yaf 04:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33

This case has been delisted due to a lack of a code letter. Real96 04:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Yaf 04:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted the case. Real96 05:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hollow points

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seung-Hui_Cho&diff=130972528&oldid=130960316

I'm reverting that - yes, "cause more tissue damage" was stated, BUT the HOW was missing!

Hollow points, according to that doctor, spread like a flower - this gives an additional detail to the reader. WhisperToMe 01:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR in Shooting ranges in the United States

Is it wise to warn someone about 3RR when you just did it yourself? --barneca (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't think I did, as 3 reverts of the same content is not a violation. But thank you for reminding me. Have self-reverted my 3rd edit to avoid any issues. Yaf 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. --barneca (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edit war

Regarding the lead poisoning issue, I have read those references that the author contends implicate lead exposure from hunting. I have been following the campaign to ban lead bullets and had occasion to read those articles a while back. Those articles do not establish the connection between hunting with lead bullets and lead toxicity. In fact, the incidence of lead exposure of hunters from lead bullets has not been documented. Tens of millions of hunters have hunted for the past century without lead toxicity. The problem with the content that I deleted is that it is mere speculation. It is not established fact. The anti lead bullet folks are the ones who are trying to attack lead bullets with this sort of speculation.

Regarding the shooting range issue. Many new shooting ranges are being built with earthen berms. In fact, the huge Clark County shooting range in Las Vegas is being designed with earthen berms and this is a $60 million project!. This will be one of the largest ranges in the western US.

Very few outdoor ranges can afford to use commercial bullet traps. I have visited many outdoor shooting ranges and they all have earthen berms. I have never seen an outdoor range that uses exotic bullet traps. The expensive commercial traps offer no improvement in safety over a standard earthen berm.

Cowboy action shooting is mostly done on general use shooting ranges. There are no special requirements for a cowboy range. However, all cowboy shooting events have a range master standing right behind the shooter to make sure that everything is safe. That is the only difference between cowboy shooting range general shooting.

Military surface danger zones were developed based on a shooting range that has no impact berms at all. Furthermore, the military SDZ is based on shooting under combat stress conditions at water, steel and concrete targets at an oblique angle, all of which promote wild shooting and extensive ricochets. Civilian ranges do not permit such uncontrolled shooting. Therefore the military guidelines do not apply to civilian shooting ranges.

We need to be careful what we put in writing about shooting and hunting in an encyclopedia. We need to be careful because there are anti hunting, anti gun and anti shooting range propagandists who use this information to try to ban lead bullets and close shooting ranges.

--Burk8 03:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)burk8

Hi burk8. I largely concur with your points. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot between your IP account and your new name account :-) Minor point of contention: cowboy action shooting is often done on general use shooting ranges. Only, it is never done on a general use shooting range when it is being used as a general use shooting range. There are too many risks involved. The article stated "specially designated" ranges. This is often just a regular range, but with, essentially, a "mode" switch such that the necessary safety changes are made when cowboy action shooting is going on. I think we were saying pretty much the same thing, essentially, but with a need to make the text more clear, as it obviously wasn't as clear as it should have been. When someone shows up with an anonymous IP account and starts making major changes to an article, including deletions of previously-cited material with no comments being made on the talk page, I just assume vandalism, and generally revert on sight. As for SDZ's, yes, they are largely military in nature. Many newly opened civilian ranges, at least in my part of the country, have had to install rather expensive modifications to their original plans to incorporate a good bit of the military rules, though, as there are military shooting ranges nearby (3 that I know of within an hours drive) and the local town council members and county commisioners and state representatives have all gone to the bases, gotten their requirements, and then modified them only slightly to establish NRA sanctioned club and state run ranges. And, yes, they do have commercial bullet traps on the 200 yard and longer distance lanes. There are only 2 of the 200 yard distance lanes on one of the local state run ranges, and they both have sand berms with pipes at 110 yards, with bullet traps to the sides of the pipe, and then a regular target at 200 yards, which one shoots at by shooting through the pipe at 110 yards. Makes for interesting wind corrections, I can tell you, for many of the calibers :-) As for the lead poisoning, I agree that lead is a low level poison agent, and that lead shot poses very little risk at all; I speak from personal experience with hunters in my own family that have eaten game for all of their lives that was hunted with lead shot and who never experienced any symptoms of lead poisoning. On the other hand, I am concerned that we need to present cited and balanced information in the lead poisoning article, and I am reluctant to remove any sources without a good reason. The key, though, is to discuss major changes on the talk page before making major changes. This way, other editors understand where someone is coming from, and don't just revert on sight. Welcome to Wikipedia. You might want to consider joining the Wikipedia firearms project. There is a link on my User page that will get you there. Lots of good folks contribute to firearms articles on Wikipedia. Yaf 05:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 :) --barneca (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reported for 3RR

Giovanni reported you here. Might want to assert the fact you self-reverted in case the admins miss that. John Smith's 00:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was not intentional. I'll restore it. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Infobox Drive for the Firearms Wikiproject

Hello Yaf. The Firearms Wikiproject is having an infobox drive. The purpose of this is to ensure that most (if not all) of the articles within our scope have the relevant infoboxes. The start date will be May 28th. If you choose to participate, go to our project page and pick an article under the To-do list's Infobox section or look for firearm articles that need an infobox. Before you start editing an article, please cross it out on the list so that we don't have editor's work clashing. The drive will last for five days. If you are interested, please RSVP to LWF. Thank you, the Firearms Wikiproject. --Seed 2.0 09:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Right to bear arms

Yaf, I count you among my Wikipedia friends, and I have long respected your cool head and fairness. But, your recent string of reverts, coupled with your refusal to engage in dialog on the talk page seem to violate the spirit of the WP:3RR policy. Please, I am sure that we can work out a compromise, and your repeated revert process, extending now for more than a week, while at the same time ignoring the talk page fails the spirit of the 3RR policy. Please reconsider your pattern of reverts with no dialog on the talk page. Thanks, SaltyBoatr 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, under both your old username and your new name, I have counted you the same, with you providing a balancing viewpoint necessary to achieve balance in our mutually-edited articles. I specifically chose not to report you for 3RR the other day, and was even disappointed to see that another editor had reported you in your zeal to edit this article when you accidentally strayed into 4 reverts. During your 24 hour "vacation", I even chose not to revert, out of respect for you, waiting until you returned. We have long edited articles, even when you wrote under your older username, with disagreements at times, but with us ultimately reaching compromises that we both could live with. I am confident that we both can continue to resolve our editorial differences even here.
Hadn't thought I had been ignoring the talk page as much as you claim, what with my added comments occurring nearly daily, but I do know you are sometimes impatient in getting faster responses from me :-) Guess it is a Pacific Time Zone versus Eastern Time Zone, i.e., West Coast vs. East Coast issue :-) On the current article editing issue, though, I feel that the Emerson case quote, coming from the Findlaw site, provides a secondary source to the primary source of the state constitutions. My compromise, to add a tertiary source, in the form of the NRA website, was my attempt to provide the "secondary source" you felt was warranted to the Findlaw quote, and to add justification for the "observed" verb in place of the earlier wording. Yet, you still do not feel that this is enough. OK, I understand that now, so what is it going to take to cite this Emerson quote, which I feel is necessary for achieving balance under the article's definition section, while meeting your interpretation of WP policy? Court cases are not de facto primary sources necessarily, contrary to what you apparently advocate; rather, it depends on the context of the content. This is at the heart of the disagreement here, I think. Yaf 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The two problems I have are that:

1) Specialized knowledge is required to understand the weight of authority of the selective quote from Emerson court document. I could accept a paraphrase of what they wrote which cites a credible secondary source, assuming that there is a credible secondary source. I have looked a lot and the two I have found are not favorable of the court opinion. The direct quote from the court document creates a risk of impression of false sense of authority (probably deliberate as a form of POV push). Indeed, after reading a lot of research on this issue, clearly the 'individual' meaning of 'bear arms' has been a relatively modern trend. A very few instances found in the late 18th Century, up until today with the 'individual' definition being the predominate definition. This idea needs credible citation, but I think the article should describe this evolution of the definition of the term.

2) The second problem is that the NRA website has no apparent reliable publication process, contrary to policy found at WP:V. Surely you can find and use better sourcing than a POV website. SaltyBoatr 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let me ponder on this for a few hours, and lets see where we get. I have no problem removing the NRA website source, as it is largely redundant to the Findlaw quote, anyway, and was intended only as a compromise for a tertiary/secondary source. As for Emerson, it is a controversial decision for a number of reasons, and I certainly understand why. I still disagree with your "modern trend", as there are numerous counterexamples; the Emerson quote is just the best paraphrase that I have been able to find to support this viewpoint with a secondary source to the state constitutions. Yaf 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A read of the lengthy trial records of Ex parte Milligan [9] (1866) indicate that the right to bear arms belongs to "persons", as an individual right, but it is original research to quote directly from this primary source unless we find a secondary source that makes this claim. No mention of having to serve in the militia or having to perform military service is required for the right to bear arms in this reference. Still is not quite what I was looking for, but interesting nonetheless, and it definitely establishes the view that existed around the time when the Civil War ended. Still looking for earlier support regarding the "at least 10 states constitutions" show numerous examples of the right to bear arms referring to civilians that were not in military service... Yaf 03:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I am confused at your definition of the word 'numerous'. The data I have seen indicates a 'self' meaning usage of 'bear arms' prior to 1789 in a US document to be only one. And 'self and state' to be at best a few percent. Prior to 1700, none. After 1800, many more. After 1900 vastly more. The 'self' meanings really blossom during the national debate whether Negros have the right/duty to join militia (and therefore to possess weapons). I have a problem with the word numerous, and think it too vague. The word 'self', and term 'self and state' usages should be quantified in th article to avoid the miss interpretation possible (and sometimes intended) with the word 'numerous'. I also see the term 'self and state' used in those state constitutions, and your use of the word 'individual' is clear POV push. SaltyBoatr 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hoplophobia

Thank you for your recent attention to this article. It has really helped to break a deadlock between two contributors.

Even though you consider the source under discussion to be valid one, you almost certainly would not have found the excerpted quote to be contributory. This was the state of the article before I came along. —BozoTheScary 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Weapons, Personal weapons, and Hunting weapons, black powder guns not firearms?

Your logic about black powder weapons not being firearms is vastly inconsistent with the article Firearms, and the common definition that explosive gas propelling a bullet makes a firearm a firearm. Regardless, some US law that says otherwise shouldn't carry much weight in a global encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments to this are on the Weapons talk page. Yaf 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] troll tag

Perhaps there is some compromise wording we can work out. Calling me a troll, and wholesale reverting the text, while refusing to answer my question is not helpful. I point out that the last part of the first paragraph says the same thing as the text which you keep inserting into the article. SaltyBoatr 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never called you a troll. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? As for re-inserting properly cited information back into the Right to bear arms article that you removed, yes, I did. As stated previously, by other editors as well as by me, this information is properly cited, and establishes a counterpoint to the rest of the definition section of the article definition. Because of this, it is entirely proper for this observation by a verifiable secondary source to be included, in the form of the 5th Circuit's observation of the content of the constitutions of states (these constitutions, of course, are the primary sources). This observation should be included for a counterbalance to the otherwise unbalanced slant that pushes a POV for purely military-only definitions in the bulk of the remaining context of the definition section of the right to bear arms article. Stating that gun rights activitists also feel that this is true is a different observation entirely. I am ok with both these observations remaining in the definition section. But, the cited observation by the 5th Circuit is by far the stronger cited statement of the two. Yaf 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is the diff[10] of the troll tag you added. SaltyBoatr 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This may not be my place, but Yaf was not calling you a troll when he placed the troll tag. He was saying that the topic may be attractive to trolls, and that everyone needs to be careful not to get angry and confrontational when discussing the topic.--LWF 19:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Much as the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which we jointly edited while you contributed under your earlier WP user name, and which I might add, for which we had inserted a trollwarning tag as it came to be that it often attracted and continues to attract trolls regularly, I felt that Hunting weapon would also likely be an article and topic that would similarly attract anti-hunting rights and animal activists trolls, and that we should keep our collective cool while discussing editing this article. I don't understand how you interpreted that this trollwarning tag placed on one article (Hunting weapon) on Wikipedia was addressed at your personal edits and contributions on Wikipedia to other articles (Right to bear arms) or to you in general. Putting a troll warning on this other article, Hunting weapon, was intended to try to encourage non-confrontational, cool, calm, and collected editing of this likely-to-be hot-topic article; at least, this was my intent on trollwarning tagging this article. Can we agree on the need for contributing editors to try and avoid anger while editing Hunting weapon? Yaf 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You write "by far the stronger"; that is the nut of my complaint. Exactly why should that court document be considered stronger? SaltyBoatr 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It is by far the stronger and more appropriate secondary source since it summarizes with a single, succinct statement, and with a secondary source at that, at least 10 other primary sources, i.e., the state constitutions of at least 10 other states. This is clearly a stronger and more useful secondary source, rather than inserting at least 10 other primary sources (state constitutions) and likely falling into OR issues in interpreting these primary sources, or, alternatively, in having to find 10 other secondary sources, and having a rather awkward sentence structure likely to develop in making the same point without invoking WP:SYN issues. I am not opposed to the statements that presently exist that state there were many militia or military service uses of bearing arms; but, by the same token, I am opposed to deleting all mention that there were also numerous examples of civilians bearing arms, as observed by the 5th Circuit. Yaf 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yaf, I notice that once again you reverted your Emerson court document quote, without addressing my concern about WP:NOR. See the last sentence of the first paragraph of the policy WP:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." Note that this is mandatory Wikipedia policy, not optional Wikipedia standard. The test is simple: 'any interpretation'. Reading directly a court document qualifies as 'any interpretation' because reading any court document must always be viewed, using 'special knowledge', in context of orbiter dictum or ratio decidendi. Your present weasel word 'observed' therefore is an interpretation prohibited per WP:NOR. Please stop your revert cycle until we resolve this WP policy violation. The easiest way is to find a credible secondary source which synthesizes the Emerson document. I have provided you with two, use them, or find another. Please stop ignoring this. SaltyBoatr 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no original research here at all. Just a properly cited quote. And the insertion of the information precisely meets the need for a secondary source to interpret the primary source material in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Namely, the court's observation is a secondary source relative to the primary sources of the at least 10 state constitutions themselves that are being discussed. Please don't violate WP:DICK over your stubborn refusal to recognize the context of the court's observation as being a secondary source, and the state constitutions as being the primary sources. Obiter dictum and ratio decidendi have nothing to do with the observation by the court of an entirely different set of documents than the court case itself. No special knowledge (unless you consider reading English to be special knowledge, but perhaps you do consider this to be a requirement of special knowledge) is required to read the court's observation relative to the state constitutions. Please stop beating a dead horse. Thank you. Yaf 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
To address the concern of "observed" being original research, have added a cite in which this verb is used relative to the discussion of the 5th Circuit's comment. Yaf 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but the website of the NRA does not appear to have a reliable publication process as required per WP:V. Also, you are incorrect that say there is no original research in your selective quotation directly from the primary court document. The pure act of selecting out which text to quote amounts to 'interpretation', and the policy threshold is 'any interpretation'. Also, I consider being called a 'dick' to be offensive and a personal attack. All I ask is that Wikipedia policy be followed. I do not understand why you do not simply use the available credible secondary sources, I have shown you two (or find another). I must not understand the reason for your stubbornness, please explain. SaltyBoatr 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Get real. Any quotation is by necessity a selective quotation; othewise, the quotation would violate fair-use principles and not be permitted. Wikipedia does not ban using cited quotations, your comments notwithstanding. Neither does WP permit violating copyrights and permit copying more content than justified by fair-use legal restrictions. As for the NRA publication process, they definitely have a publication process for each and every item they publish, website or magazine or press release. If you don't believe this, try to publish one of your self-written vanity articles in one of their publications or websites; other than (possibly) a letter to the editor, it won't be published unless it meets their publication criteria. I am clearly following Wikipedia policy. I realize you are the original author of the Right to bear arms article. Nonetheless, please do not resort to sock puppetry using both identities (your original one and your new "anonymous" alter-ego) to try to force your POV onto this article to remove properly-cited content because it goes counter to your original POV that bearing arms applies only to militiary service, as I note you have done today. I agree that militiary service is the predominate usage and always have. On the other hand, I also think it only fair to provide balance to the article, through providing properly-cited evidence that there are also numerous and significant cases where "bearing arms" has also been applied to civilians' usage of arms. The 5th Circuit's observation is clearly a secondary source relative to the at least 10 state constitutions which constitute the primary sources here. I don't understand how you can say this observation is not credible. Likewise, I don't understand how you can say their observation is not reliable and verifiable. Also, I don't understand why you wish to downplay the numerous examples of this, and remove cited evidence to push your POV. Please Don't be dense. Thank you. Yaf 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and do not downplay the view that some instances of 'bear arm' usages which can be seen as civilian have been identified from the late 18th Century. Further the article does make this point already without your Emerson quote. Still, quoting directly from a court document violates WP:NOR, see also WP:ATT/FAQ. You have stated your opinion that you disagree with me dozens of times, but you have not yet proven your point. (Repeating your opinion over and over accomplishes nothing.) A simpler route would be to use a credible secondary source, I have provided you with two, or find another. And no, the website of the NRA does not meet the standards of WP:V. SaltyBoatr 23:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colt Paterson

Thank you for formating this article and fixing links. I don't plan to continue editing articles but did have some experience with this subject and a couple of others. Your contributions should make them useful.--Cumpston 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to lend a hand. You did a good job on getting it started and putting in some real content. Yaf 04:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rvv

Please refrain from describing[11] my good faith edits as vandalism. You are erroneously marking the edit summary of your revert with "rvv", 'revert vandalism', which smears my reputation. Thanks in advance. SaltyBoatr 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of large amounts of properly cited text, supported by consensus from multiple editors, repeatedly deleted by just one editor, over multiple weeks, despite being restored by multiple editors, is clearly vandalism, and should be marked as such. Yaf 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism, my edits are in good faith and not vandalism. I share frustration with this process too. I suggest that we actually try to listen and respect each other, and answer each other's questions. Your policy of revert warring is not working. Let's try to actually address each others concerns and find or negotiate a compromise. SaltyBoatr 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism again. Blanking pages or content on pages without consensus repeatedly is vandalism. Please stop vandalizing Right to bear arms. Thank you. Yaf 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read it again as you suggested. It says this: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." My removal of your paragraph which fails policy WP:V and WP:NOR has been thoroughly explained in the talk page. What we have here instead of vandalism is an edit war. Would you agree to a dispute resolution process to end this edit war? SaltyBoatr 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
My edits are in good faith and are solidly based on Wikipedia policy. My edits have been throughly explained on the talk page. I have tried every way I know to join with you to collaborate on the editing of that article, with no success yet. Will you agree to participate in a dispute resolution process to end this edit war? SaltyBoatr 14:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, blanking significant amounts of content without consensus as you have done repeatedly is vandalism per Wikipedia policy. Deleting properly-cited content that happens to be contrary to your POV repeatedly, against a consensus developed in an article over many months, and reverted again and again against your blanking by multiple editors for over a month now, indicates that your "explanation" that special knowledge is needed to read a summary statement that any reasonably-educated person conversant with written English can verify is true, is clearly disruptive to Wikipedia. Why do you insist on disrupting Wikipedia against multiple editors to delete any semblance of balance to your sole POV? The easiest way to end this controversy is for you simply to allow the properly-cited content to remain in the article, to balance the POV (mostly yours, I might add) that is already in the article that military usage of a right to bear arms is the "normal" view. As the 5th Circuit observed and wrote, this is clearly not true; having their quote in the article provides balance for the article, improving the article. Converting the content of the 5th Circuit's quote to a poorly-worded, watered-down version destroys the balance provided by the quote as it presently exists. There is no original research in the quote; it is properly-cited. It is not a primary source relative to the summary of the state constitutions and declarations of rights which it summarizes; instead, it is a secondary source. The cite is verifiable. The cite is reliable. In short, there is no reason why the quote should not remain in the article, except for your extreme POV that refuses to compromise and accept a quote that is contrary to your POV. Yaf 03:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In short there is no reason? You ignore the reasons I have given. SaltyBoatr 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am still very willing to compromise and have offered to do so on many occasions. My latest two incremental compromise offers[12] [13] were flatly reverted by you [14] [15]. Instead of revert warring, I suggest that you make a counter offer. What you did instead was to call me a vandal and threaten to have me blocked[16] [17]. I suggest that we both review how to resolve disputes and take that advice to heart so we can find a way to resolve our dispute. Your offer of compromise in the fourth sentence of your paragraph above is for me to simply allow your edit, and that is hardly a 'compromise'. Are you willing to approach this impasse between us again with a real spirit of compromise? SaltyBoatr 16:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yaf, this is frustrating. On one hand you ask me to compromise[18]. Yet when I offer a compromise[19] you simply revert[20] the compromise with no discussion of the talk page and no compromise in return. Please reconsider and engage with me in negotiation to resolve our disagreement. SaltyBoatr 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--LWF 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Powerhead

I changed boom stick in the Hunting weapon article to bang stick and/or powerhead where appropriate, and pointed it at said article. I also added a section to the hunting weapon article, since the powerhead is a rather unique class of firearm. scot 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olive branch

Yaf, can I offer an olive branch to you? I think that both of us can be more productive if we find a way to make peace and cooperate with each other. Our shared values certainly exceed our differences. SaltyBoatr 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

The decision was to merge not redirect. PianoKeys 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

When an article (article A) is merged into another article (article B), article A then is changed into a redirect because the information from it is now covered in article B.

[edit] Please suggest a compromise which you could find acceptable.

Can we please avoid restarting the edit war over on Bear Arms? I have offered several possible compromises, which you refuse. Could you please offer a compromise in return? Try changing your wording just a little, perhaps we can find a mutually acceptable middle ground? Thanks. SaltyBoatr 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gun

Apparently, we're trying to correct the vandalism to Gun in parallel! I've requested the page to be moved back to its original location on WP:RM, but I don't know if it is the most sensible thing to do... I just wanted you to know I'm not trying to undo what you've done! CyrilB 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I had figured that out. This will take an admin to fix the vandalism. Yaf 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The vandal is now blocked indefinitely. Damage has been undone. Problem solved. Yaf 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4RR

Yaf, you have made four quick reverts over at bear arms. Please considered this in context of WP:3RR Can we make peace and resolve our dispute instead of fighting and reporting each other for 3RR blocks? SaltyBoatr 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you for violating the above mentioned policy. The duration of the block is 24 hours. – Steel 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)