Berean Hunter (talk | contribs) →Input requested on page moves: new section |
Writ Keeper (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
Which is correct 9x19mm or 9x19 mm? <br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="1px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]]</span> 14:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
Which is correct 9x19mm or 9x19 mm? <br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="1px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]]</span> 14:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Help requested for recent changes to [[Cartridge (firearms)]] == |
|||
Hi, guys, I recently reverted a bunch of changes to this article by a new and unexperienced user. I've tried to go back and redo some of the changes that seemed reasonable, but I don't know all that mcuh about the subject; can someone else more familiar than me take a look and see if there's anything else salvageable? Thanks! [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:36, 8 March 2012
Firearms NA‑class | |||||||
|
Index
|
|||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
WikiProject Military history / Firearms International
Discussions:
Military history / Firearms
Diskussionen: Militär / Waffen
Discussions: Histoire militaire / Armes
Discussioni: Guerra / Armi da fuoco
Dyskusje: Militaria / Broń
Обсуждения: Военная история
Some gun law changes including importation of shotguns and some protections becoming permanent
As of the 18th of November 2011, information regarding imported shotguns (those considered non-sport types) was signed into law. Some previously illegal shotguns are now legal in the United States (such as the SPAS) along with protections for gun owners. The article is here: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7180&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Those of you whom maintain pages on the 2nd amendment, firearms, legality, and protections should visit the link and also search the government website to read up on these changes, along with an additional citation for the pages you work on. Thank you all whom work on our freedoms and firearm pages. 98.252.19.20 (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Infoboxes
I've been plugging away at the "person" infoboxes and we're down to about a dozen, I can't find much on the few who are left...anyone care to lend a hand? thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- What page lists them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- In the project "to do" list:[1] .--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
National Background Check System
How do I make a hatnote or inclusion at the National Background Check System page to clear up user confusion that the National Background Check System terminology is not to be confused with Background Checks Systems (domain was registered in 2002 before government named their product) which is a private company providing background checks to business consumers. The National Background Checks System is part of the USA federal government and relies on fingerprints from the national crime information center and is more commonly used by firearms dealers and/or official government agencies. We get quite a bit of email and phone traffic from anxious firearm buyers asking us about delays in their background checks when in reality they should be contacting either the firearms dealer or the National Background Check System.
Joeg524 (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Gun Control Items have a Bias... should they be removed from the Firearms Project?
I am finding lots of biased information on gun-control related pages. It is understandable that those who have an interest in guns would contribute the most, but from my progressive standpoint I can see that Wikipedia's gun control pages have become greatly biased by rhetoric perpetuated by the gun industry. Looking at some of the user names and profiles it seems that WikiProject Firearms project contributors generally have a personal or financial interest in the gun industry. Cooldavid (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about assuming good faith and not making sweeping accusations against an entire project for starters. Technically you just levelled a personal attack on an entire group. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone propose an alternative "home" for gun control/policy/politics items that is more academic with an inherently Neutral POV? If nobody is interested, perhaps we need a new project group? Cooldavid (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You can create a progressive project, or gun control project or whatever else you wish if you feel you can get people to contribute and help you out. There will be some crossover with this project on some articles. There's no need to be snarky.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, Thanks. I have re-framed my point so that it states it as my observation, hopefully it won't come across as snarky Cooldavid (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- No prob. Debates like this can get heated, even if we disagree it pays to be polite and remain cool--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Some Examples of Bias on articles with Wiki Firearms Project
- Pretty much every section here has bias towards casting doubt on the effectiveness of gun policy. When data varies so much and there is so much data it is easy to pick two points and claim correlation. For example, your page states: "In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977." While this may be a true statement, it is merely a random factoid that has no relevance or importance especially regarding the claimed correlation. See how the murder rate of Hawaii greatly varies: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/hicrime.htm
The Wiki Firearms project is filled with such "facts", which are popularized and perpetuated by the gun industry's propaganda machine.
- United States: "Incidents of gun violence in 'gun-free' school zones have ignited debate[54] involving gun politics in the United States." This is tired gun lobby rhetoric. For example the most recent big debate was the Tucson Massacre was committed in an area where armed individuals were permitted to carry guns, and during the shooting, an armed individual was in the vicinity.
- Efforts and actions: Map coloring (green indicates weak gun laws while red indicates strong gun laws) Stated mission: seems setup to cast doubt on the credibility of the organization History: In January 2010 the Better Business Bureau published its Charity Review on the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stating that it failed to meet six (of twenty) standards for charity accountability. (Should be listed as criticism, not history)
- "This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links." Enough said
Cooldavid (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about specific examples of your allegations rather than a half-assed smear job? Any jerk can throw a tag on a page and then cite it as "proof". You have no proof that editors from this project made any of those edits. Stop trolling.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why raising valid points about bias on wikipedia comes across as "trolling". I didn't need to slap on any tags. The content speaks for itself, and It would probably take me a whole year to exhaustively list all of the biases and incompleteness of all the various pages. I'm not accusing this group of writing the content, but since the Firearms group is listed as a responsible party for these pages, I am pointing out that there is a serious bias issue on these gun control pages and it could be tackled better. Cooldavid (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Gun control has 2 other projects attached to it: Milhistory and politics, yet you brought it here. Projects don't mean "governance", just that a particular group of editors feels it is in their sphere and they can help improve it. For instance, in the "Brady" article, someone put in that the Brady's think Armor piercing and hollow point bullets are both cop killers and refer to them as such. Well there's plenty of evidence that they believe the former, but I could find no source backing up the latter. So half that sentence was bullshit. When the bullshit was deleted, the rest didn't make any sense, so I deleted the whole thing here: [2]. I improved an article as I found incorrect information in there and removed it. Had I found a reliable source stating otherwise, the source would have been placed there and the article improved by confirming the information. You don't need a project for that, you just need to know how to edit and source. My advice would be to work on what you can and ask for help if you need it. Don't think, though that a new project will get you a flurry of volunteer helpers. You'll see what I mean by Monday.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Input requested on page moves
See Talk:9×19 mm Parabellum#Move.
Which is correct 9x19mm or 9x19 mm?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Help requested for recent changes to Cartridge (firearms)
Hi, guys, I recently reverted a bunch of changes to this article by a new and unexperienced user. I've tried to go back and redo some of the changes that seemed reasonable, but I don't know all that mcuh about the subject; can someone else more familiar than me take a look and see if there's anything else salvageable? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)