User talk:Yaf

Talk Archives

• User talk:Yaf/Archive 1 -- 22 November 2005 - 14 July 2007

Welcome

Please feel free to leave comments. Thanks. Yaf 05:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Questions

Hi,

I am an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Boston College, and I am researching the development of the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre. You were among the top 2% of editors for that article, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to answer a few questions by email. Please also indicate at the bottom if you’d be willing to participate in a short follow-up phone/Skype interview as well.

All of your responses and your participation will be confidential. Please cut and paste the below questions and respond by email to gerald.kane@bc.edu to ensure confidentiality.

I appreciate your help on this project, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Please also let me know if you are interested in receiving a copy of the paper when it is finished.

Thank You, Gerald C (Jerry) Kane, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Information Systems Carroll School of Management Boston College 140 Commonwealth Ave 326 Fulton Hall Chestnut Hill, MA 02478

Questions: 1) On average, how many hours per week do you spend editing articles on Wikipedia? 2) Why do you contribute your time and energy to developing Wikipedia articles? 3) What types of articles to which do you typically contribute? 4) Why did you choose to become involved in the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 5) What was your primary role in the process of creating the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre (e.g. copy editing, fighting vandalism, contributing news, managing a particular section, etc?) 6) How was your experience with this article similar to or different than other Wikipedia articles to which you have contributed? 7) What were some of the most challenging issues facing the successful development of this particular article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 8) What do you think were some of the primary reasons that this article was successful (i.e. cited in the press, nominated as a “featured article.”) 9) Is there anything else I should know about the Wikipedia article on the VT massacre? 10) Would you be willing to participate in a short phone/Skype interview to talk more about your experience with the article (if yes, I will follow up later by email to arrange it).

Mediation

"Looks like this mediation is nearing an end to me." I wonder if the mediator had any idea what he was getting into when he agreed to this? Is there a "barnstar of infinite patience" we could give him when this is over? scot 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest we try to focus on exactly the topic being mediated which is: "Is the use of the word weapon in the context of Hunting weapon global or worldwide English?" I see that the trouble comes from the fact that we are drifting off topic. For instance, simply showing a hundred examples of the term being used does nothing to answer the question being mediated. All it proves is that the term has been used by a hundred people, which is a separate question entirely. SaltyBoatr 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Generations reformatting

I posted to the Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion#Template:Generations a suggestion to reformat this awful table into a useful navigation box. I'd be interested in your thoughts at the tfd.  ∴ Therefore  talk   12:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Walther P22

In our debate about including the VT Massacre on the Walther P22 article, I was swayed by your comment (which now appears on the archived talk page). You wrote, "Columbine Massacre led to directly banning the Tec-9, by name, in the Assault Weapons Ban, and the weapon received considerable media and legislative attention as a result of Columbine... As the P22 has not received any notable media attention yet, nor legislative attention by Congress, the consensus reached in the discussion of the Beretta CX4 Storm should apply here. Namely, if the P22 receives considerable media attention as a result of the VT shootings, then mention of the shootings in the P22 article should be added in a few months." Based on your criteria, I think a mention of eBay's banning ammunition sales due to the shooter's using ammunition he purchased from eBay for his P22 belongs in the article. There is a debate about this at the P22 Talk page. You might want to weigh in. Griot 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gun show edits

Hey, it looks like you're in the middle of a bunch of edits. If you get a chance, can you combine the refs that are use multiple times with the "name" tag? Or if you can't get to it, shoot me a message when you're done and I'll try to take care of it. Arthur 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Crimping

Yeah, it does get complex. Remember back when there weren't any commonly available bottlenecked auto cartridges? Just the obsolete .30 Luger, its cousin the .30 Mauser/7.62x25mm, which wasn't widely imported, and the occasional wildcat. Now there's the .357 Sig, .400 Cor-Bon, .224 Boz, 5.7x28mm, .25 NAA, .32 NAA, 5.45x18mm, and those are just the ones that come to mind. And to make things really complicated, you have the semi-rimmed .38 Super, which can headspace on the rim or the mouth, is still hanging around, despite the best efforts of the gun and ammo makers to replace it with something more modern... scot 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Amendment Incorporation Incorporation (Bill of Rights)

I haven't edited Wikipedia much, so I don't know the proper protocal for these things, but I'm sure that this statement is mistaken:

However Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968), in dicta regarding the interpretation of Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937), indicates that all Amendments dealing with "ordered liberty" should be regarded as being incorporated according to the majority concurrence by Justice Black

(1) I understand that Black joined White's opinion. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether Black's opinion is the controlling opinion of the Court for stare decisis purposes. It can't be because it only got two votes. White's opinion received a majority, and it's the opinion of the Court. That the author of a concurrence also signed the majority opinion does not mean that the concurrence, rather than the majority opinion, is the opinion of the Court.

(2) Black's Duncan concurrence advocates total incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Palko explicitly rejected this proposition. Black only mentions Palko once in his Duncan opinion to note his opposition to it. He does not interpret Palko, let alone rely on it. While Black's opinion does support incorporating the Second Amendment, it is not based on Palko's "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty test."

(3) White's majority opinion does not rely on the Palko test either. In footnote 14 on page 149, he specifically rejects the Palko test.

(4) I believe Duncan does support interpreting the 2nd Amendment. But it's White's opinion that matters. He lays out at least three factors favoring incorporation of the right to a criminal jury: 1. It's history in the common law and protection in the 1689 Bill of Rights, 2. It's protection in founding era state constitutions, and 3. It's protection in state constitutions today. All these also favor incorporating the right to bear arms, and the Court will probably hold that way if it takes Parker on cert.

But this doesn't change the fact that the quoted portion of the article is wrong and should be deleted or revised.

216.183.171.30 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Good points, all. However, the key detail that you omit is that the phrase in dicta means that the statement is not binding, and is only a side comment. As Black joined White's opinion, the whole case was decided 7-2; however, only 2 agreed with the dicta. The quoted portion is not wrong, but should perhaps be worded differently to make the in dicta status more apparent. Does this make sense? Yaf 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

216.183.171.30 No one is disputing that the language in question is dicta -- Duncan was a 6th amendment, not a 2nd amendment case. But you're missing the main point: White's opinion is the opinion of the Court, not Black's. It is therefore incorrect to state "Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968). .. . indicates . . . ." If you're referring to Black's concurrence, you have to write Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (Black, J., concurring).

There can be no dispute that White's is the opinion of the Court. Referring to Black's opinion in this case as a "majority concurrence" is just plain wrong. In rare situations -- when the concurrence breaks a 4-4 tie -- the concurrence can be considered the opinion of the Court. Cf. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (Powell, J.). But since White's opinion in Duncan got seven votes, it's the opinion of the Court. Period. There's nothing at all controversial about it.

It doesn't matter that Black also joined White's opinion. Their opinions are still separate. You can't take statements from Black's opinion and treat them as if they were from White's opinion.

Calling the statement dicta doesn't change anything either. Dicta are statements in an opinion that are not necessary to the holding. Only statements actually in White's opinion -- the opinion of the Court -- can be called dicta from that opinion. You can't just take statements from a dissent or a concurrence and call them dicta from the majority opinion. Again, this is basic stuff that's not at all controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Parker pertains only to a federal district and not to any State. So I don't see how a SCOTUS Parker ruling, up or down, can have any affect on incorporating the 2A to bear on the States. Or, am I not seeing this right? SaltyBoatr 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Parker pertains to a local law in the DC. (The permission for home rule can be rescinded at any time by Congress, but under the present state of affairs, this is strictly a home rule law issue.) Hence, if SCOTUS rules that the present local law ruling stands, it means that all local laws throughout the land must be kept in accordance with the 2A. everywhere, and incorporation would be de facto. (According to some POVs, incorporation has already occurred "virtually", but because there hasn't been any declarations on the 2A forthcoming from the SCOTUS simply by virtue that no 2A issues requiring a ruling have occurred since 1939, and incorporation of the 'ordered liberty' parts of the Bill of Rights occurred after this, no formal declaration of incorporation has been necessary up to this point.) On the other hand, if cert is not granted (which we should know by Tuesday, Nov 13, 2007 by reading the current tea leaves by my sources, then it means much the same, but would have to be retested for each municipality. Either way, it would result in the 2A being recognized as a personal right of the people, consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, consistent with incorporation. On the other hand, if cert is granted and the ruling comes down counter to this, i.e., to permit the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then we could be looking at CW II. Interesting times! Yaf 07:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy of the local law in DC to the local law in the 50 States seems like a giant leap of logic. The DC local law is subject only to the federal constitution. All other city and county law in the United States in subject to the respective 50 state constitutions. SaltyBoatr 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

216.183.171.30

Parker does nothing to address incorporation. A direct quote from footnote 13 of the opinion:

"While the status of the Second Amendment within the twentieth-century incorporation debate is a matter of importance for the many challenges to state gun control laws, it is an issue that we need not decide. The District of Columbia is a Federal District, ultimately controlled by Congress. Although subject to § 1983 suits by federal law, see An Act to Permit Civil Suits Under [42 U.S.C. § 1983] Against Any Person Acting Under Color of Any Law or Custom of the District of Columbia, Pub. L. No. 96-170, 93 Stat. 1284 (1979), the District is directly constrained by the entire Bill of Rights, without need for the intermediary of incorporation. See, e.g., Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U.S. 363, 369-80, 94 S. Ct. 1723, 40 L. Ed. 2d 198 (1974) (applying Seventh Amendment to local legislation for the District)."

(I'm sorry if this isn't formatted correctly.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DA autos/revolvers

I'm going to have to disagree with you; double action revolvers universally have some sort of hammer block/transfer bar/inertia system that prevents an accidental discharge with hammer down on a loaded cylinder, as do nearly all autoloaders. The only ones that have to be carried hammer down on any empty are the Colt 1873 clones that don't have safety upgrades, like the old model Blackhawks. scot 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For new double action revolvers, I agree with your statement. But, for the older ones, say pre-WW II S&W Hand-ejectors, for example, they are double action but have no hammer block/transfer bar/inertia safety system. It all depends. A user has to know what his DA-revolver will do when dropped if a chamber is loaded. Yaf 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

revert on mall shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westroads_Mall_shooting&curid=14576177&diff=177954263&oldid=177954058

I agree with the revert, but I have to point out that it is not vandalism, it was an edit that appears to be in good faith. It's not reverting vandalism. KV(Talk) 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing the name of a title of a source in an inline citation to agree with one's User ID on WP is clearly vandalism. It was not a good faith edit. Yaf (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Gun show

Thank you for your work on this article. I will check that each statement is supported by the citation and in the case that it isn't, I will look for a source to replace it. I look forward to working with you on this article in the future. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge

Hi Yaf, I see you are working on the Ruby Ridge article, and the edits you have made there are a real improvement, thanks. One question, or clarification, that comes up is your mentioning of the $200 tax. Actually, I believe the charge was violation of the NFA, and to call this just a tax is misleading. As important as the tax was the requirement and failure to register a Title II weapon with the ATF. I am raising this here on your talk page because I don't see a need to interrupt the flow of your work on the article, this was not simply a tax issue but also more importantly a failure to register etc. with the ATF as required by law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points, all. I will try to cover these points, too. (Filing to pay the tax, though, does automatically register one's SBS legally, at least at the federal level. Local laws also apply in some jurisdictions, too, but not in Idaho.) The article is really in need of a lot of work. If you have the time, it would be great to see some inputs from you, too. Happy New Year! Yaf (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is and was just a tax. The NFA was a tax law. It was popular at the time to write federal laws into the Tax Code as the Federal government doesn't really have a RIGHT to enforce laws that do not deal with interstate commerce. As the modification of weapons within the state and, therefore, not dealing in interstate commerce, Weaver had not violated a federal law, period. In order to enforce the NFA, the BATF (at the time under the Treasury Department) must cite a direct link with interstate commerce. This requirement is mostly ignored and ridiculed today, but try reading some precedent and you'll ALWAYS find a direct link to interstate commerce is clearly stated. When you register an NFA weapon, you aren't registering yourself or the weapon, you are validating that said weapon's tax has been paid. They issue a STAMP and you're required to keep that stamp with the firearm. As Yaf said, local laws do not apply in Idaho. Does anybody remember a conviction for the modificaiton of the firearm? --Asams10 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine Article

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look?Sf46 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Florida Weapons Laws

Yaf,

Nothing in Florida's code requires a non-permit-holder to conceal a weapon when he or she carries it in a vehicle. I have stopped many people with weapons in their cars and have never arrested anyone for having the weapon displayed openly. Can you cite a source? Here are the applicable sections of the Florida code.

Section 790.25(5), which deals specifically with possession in a private conveyance states that "it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012." (Emphasis added.)

Section 790.001(17) defines the term "securely encased" to mean "in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access." Patchogue (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can. First, the laws are different for long guns than handguns. Long guns can be carried openly with no issues in a vehicle, as you state. The reason for this is to be consistent with Georgia law, which requires the open carry of long guns in vehicles during hunting season, and, since many Florida residents hunt in Georgia, this was done by the Florida legislature long ago to be consistent with Georgia law for Florida and Georgia residents crossing the state line between the two states in vehicles, for reconciliation of hunting season purposes. Second, for handguns, if the handgun is not in a snapped holster, but is in the open, then it is a second degree misdemeanor of "open carrying of weapons", prohibited by F.S. 790.053. On the other hand, if the weapon is concealed within the passenger compartment within ready access, and the person with the concealed weapon does not have a permit either from Florida, or one from another state recognized by Florida, then it it is a third degree felony of carrying a concealed handgun without a permit, prohibited by F.S. 790.06. On the other hand, if the handgun is securely encased, whether in a snapped holster or not, concealed or not, then it is legal again (because it is "securely encased". Then, if the gun is concealed out of sight, it is legal with or without a concealed permit to have the handgun (even if not in a snapped holster) if the handgun is in a glove compartment, a closed purse, a closed briefcase, or a closed center console, again by the "securely encased" portions of the law. And, still again, if the handgun is not in a snapped holster, but is securely enclosed in the trunk, it is legal again, both under Florida law for Florida residents, and additionally, under a 1986 Federal law for travelers passing through the state, as long as their origination and destination local laws permit possession of handguns. On the other hand, having a handgun without it being in a snapped holster but in a cloth bag, although the handgun is concealed, is illegal again. There are lots of technicalities here, which are very difficult to distill down for an encyclopedia article. Also, although I applaud your stance, as it is refreshing to see a police officer who actually knows firearms law, it is entirely different between the stances taken by law officers in the northern, central, and rural areas of the state (which agree with your interpretation) than in the urban areas of the state. Most Orlando, Miami, Ft.Lauderdale, and Dade County policemen would arrest anyone with a shotgun or rifle in an open-carry rack within the passenger compartment of a pickup truck, state law be damned, and a private citizen would need a lawyer to get it (ultimately) resolved favorably :-) As the article had not gone through the lengthy discussions of "in a snapped holster" for handguns vs. open carry for long guns, the concealed aspects of "securely encased" applicable for handguns which are most commonly used for CCW had been given the predominance in the article to date. This is an oversimplification, of course.

All this said, I am not sure how to address the numerous technicalities in the article without confusing readers; it is all very complex. And, our discussion has only involved Florida law. I have not discussed the differences among other states; some, such as Illinois, have county by county by city differences in vehicle carry laws, without any state pre-emption such as in Florida! Any ideas how to address this, without getting readers in trouble with law enforcement officers? -- Yaf (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(the preceding discussion was copied to the talk page of the CCW article. Further discussion on this topic should take place there. Yaf (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SKS caption

You removed a caption talking about the grenade launcher on an M59/66 rifle, saying "there is no grenade launcher in the photo". The caption has already been reworded by somebody else, but I thought I'd mention to you that the M59/66 has a grenade launcher on the muzzle for shooting rifle grenades. Perhaps you were assuming it'd be an underslung version like modern rifles, but it isn't. The current caption describes it as a "spigot-type" launcher. -CumbiaDude (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But that wasn't the issue. Initially, I was simply looking at the wrong picture, and not at the Yugo variant picture! (I have an SKS Yugo, incidentally, so I am familiar with the NATO grenade launcher :-) When my edit was corrected, it was then I noticed that the caption was for the Yugo picture. Thanks for the comments, though. Yaf (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the funny thing is, you removing it led to a far better caption, because I wanted to make it clear that the muzzle device was a grenade launcher. Now it's more informative than before.--LWF (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess it worked out well in the end then! :p -CumbiaDude (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Saturday Night Special as being in transition to non-offensive

After reading the "Saturday Night Special" example you put in the pejorative article back in 2005 with this edit, I tried to cross reference the information by editing the Saturday night special article.

As a result an editor of the Saturday night special article** removed the example from both articles. I am a specialist on language and logic, but not on firearms, so although I agree with you that "Saturday night special" is pejorative to some and not others, I don't feel like I have the authority on the subject to be sure.

Please review the edits to the pejorative (hist) and Saturday night special (hist) articles over the last few days and make sure that you agree with the removal of the example.

Thank-you, VegKilla (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

** Wait a minute. I just realized that you are the same editor as the one who removed it. Just wanted to make sure you realized that you removed your own example!:

In this edit(Dec 2005) you added the example...

...and 2 years later in this edit(Jan 2008) you removed it.

Just wanted to make sure that you meant to do that!

VegKilla (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Gun Violence in the US

Yaf, you changed my edits saying "not what the source supports; restoring to original text that does not fail fact checking". But you did not look at the my citation <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm |Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm- 26 Industrialized Countries |publisher=Center for Disease Control}}</ref>. Why do you object to these stats? --Sbcalif (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When I clicked on the footnote in the WP article, it took me to the references. But, there was no reference there that I could see. The reference failed fact checking. Yaf (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gun politics

Yaf, please reconsider your recent edit[1] in Gun Politics. In the interest of POV balance, the phrasing language choice of the position contrary to yours needs to be worded from the perspective of that contrary position. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. But it should not be worded as fact. Balance needs to be presented "public safety" vs. "public endangerment" and also greater restrictions (called "reasonable regulation" by gun banners.) Lets not mislead readers. Yaf (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I hope you agree that your 'should not be worded as fact' rule applies to your own POV too. And, please today use the talk page to discuss your edits. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Although if "reasonable regulation" were not greater restrictions, I don't think anyone would be advocating any change to the status quo. Yaf (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't pick the term 'reasonable regulation' out of thin air. I got it from the Bush administration, Department of Justice amicus brief[2] (see pg 20) which argues that 'reasonable regulation' as being properly allowed by the Second Amendment. Your personal POV is far to the right of even the Bush administration, sorry. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Such a position (the Bush administration's) is not very far to the right, though. BTW, VP Cheney has filed an amicus brief that is counter to the DOJ's brief (Bush's brief), and which is much, much farther to the right, and he has additionally requested the earlier brief (DOJ's) be pulled and rewritten. There is a wide continuum of opinion. Yaf (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Lon Horiuchi

Please stop reinserting the unsourced information to this article. All editors are empowered by WP:BLP to remove unsourced material from biographical articles. If you would like to rpesent this information, please find a reliable, published source that presents it. WP:V explains that self-published sources are never acceptable for BLP articles: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;". — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Have removed the unsourced material you inserted, too, with {{fact}}. Personally, I wouldn't have thought claiming someone was married, had children, or attended West Point, all with less than stellar cites, should be considered libellous, though. Yaf (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation

Please see my comment at Talk:Right-wing politics#Citation. - Jmabel | Talk 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And do be careful not to get sucked into 3RR in that article. - Jmabel | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yaf (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Real ID Act edit

Yaf, I just saw that you did an edit on the Real ID Act and removed a section written by Ramorum that was asserting unconstitutionality of the Act. While I agree with your edit and think that Ramorum's edit violated several policies (e.g. WP:NOR and [WP:NPOV]]), you may want to leave a few comments explaining your edit at the talk page for the Real ID Act. Ramorum clearly has strong feelings about the matter and he gives an explanation of his position there. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yaf (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge

Hi, Yaf, I see that you are reverting my edits without commentary. Rezguy (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My comments were/are on the talk page for the Ruby Ridge article. Suggest we discuss this article on the talk page for the article, and not here. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for restoring my, and others, edits in the Second Amendment article. Saltyboatr, arrogantly wants the article to favor an anti-RKBA stance. It's ironic that he is the one claiming a POV problem regarding that article. Again, thanks. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

SF Weekly article

Thanks for that link, it was a somewhat fulfilling tale, given that I do have history with him. And others of the type. The question now is, does that article give him sufficient notability to warrant his own article? "Griot, widely known asshole and Wikipedia editor..." And with a published source to back that up. Oh, the joy that would bring...

On the other hand, I feel the need to ping Ms. Spicuzza and point out to her that it's not the writer's credibility that's at issue on Wikipedia, but rather the writer's sources. And I'm even willing to use my real name... scot (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible resource for US v. Heller

From a history professor at George Mason university, and author of a book on teh 2nd Amendment: http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html scot (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, scot. Have also ordered his book. Yaf (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A very interesting read. Well documented, with lots of historical essays, records, etc. Very useful, indeed. Yaf (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state)

Regarding a change you made to this article, changing the word "resident" to "individual" in both the Georgia and Florida sections: I do not think this is correct, or at least not as correct as it was before. Interstate transaction of firearms (with a few exceptions) require the transfer to go through an FFL. Some states have also adopted this rule as well, but Georgia and Florida have no such restrictions. A Georgia resident can sell to another Georgia resident without involving an FFL. A Georgia resident selling to a Florida resident is supposed to transfer through one or more FFL holders.TheGuruFromAU (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You have that backwards. I changed the word "individual" to "resident" for both the FL and GA sections.[3][4] It is illegal for a resident of any state to privately sell a firearm in his home state to anyone who is not a resident of the same state. Yes, a Georgia resident can sell to another Georgia resident, in a private sale, with no problems in GA. Likewise, a Florida resident can sell to another Florida resident, in a private sale, with no problems in FL. It is worth noting that US citizenship is not required, only legal residency in GA or FL, respectively. It is also illegal to sell a firearm in your own state to an illegal alien, who is in the US illegally, but this is a Federal law. For this case, residency is not all that matters, in addition there must be legal residency status. Yaf (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct on all counts. I misread trhe edit. Thanks for making that clarification and edit. TheGuruFromAU (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Haynes v. United States edit

"Gun control" is not a pejorative term. If it were, then why did the US government use it in the title of GCA '68? Dammit, all the good user names are taken! (talk) 20:46, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't the Gun Rights Act of 1968, was it ;-) In general, "gun control" is widely viewed as pejorative, by virtue its use pre-biases the discussion. In general, the term "Gun Control" should only be used on Wikipedia where it is the legal name of an act of Congress (such as in GCA '68), or where it is the stated political position of an organization (HGC, or some such). The rest of the time, for neutrality, "Gun politics" is generally preferred, instead of the term "gun control" or, similarly, the term "gun rights" for expressing the opposite viewpoint. The term "Gun Control" is highly pejorative among many gun owners, and gun rights organizations such as the Gun Owners of America (GOA), and the JPFO, for example. Yaf (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, can you point to a reliable source that says that "gun control" is a pejorative term? Just asking. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources from which one can draw. However, one source that is in keeping with the discussions being discussed below is:

"If you study the words of those who advocate global gun control, you will find sweeping police powers offensive not just to the right to keep and bear arms, but to the entire Bill of Rights."

There are more precise quotes that directly address the pejorative aspects more clearly, but this one probably says it well enough for a casual discussion on a talk page. Yaf (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Lapierre is writing of global gun control and complaining that the global is offensive to the USA Bill of Rights? I don't understand his logic, he is mixing jurisdictions. How does the US Bill of Rights pertain to gun control in the Sudan, etc. enough to qualify as a pejorative? Disjointed logic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He is not really mixing jurisdictions. Unfortunately, it is only clear upon reading the book. Basically, his premise is that international or global moves at gun control include as their goal the planned removal of gun rights in the US, through the back door of establishing UN treaties that can supercede rights protected in the US Constitution, and through UN directives on human rights, and through associated global pushes to force the abandonment of much of the US Bill of Rights. The global gun control movement has already won in Australia, the UK, and other areas that are based on a historical common law system; the US is simply the next common law area in the crosshairs of the planned global gun control movement. Wayne writes of what happened in the areas where gun control has been forced onto the local citizens, and makes a strong case that the general outcome is usually a genocide involving rather large groups of people. Is this clear now? Yaf (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I could see how the term "gun rights" would pre-bias the discussion, since it presupposes that there actually is an individual right to own and carry firearms, which many people dispute. But what does the term "gun control" presuppose? Dammit, all the good user names are taken! (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Much as the term "Gun rights" pre-biases a discussion, the term "Gun control" likewise pre-biases a discussion, through implying infringement upon the Second Amendment to a greater or lesser extent -- at least, by some points of view. One of the purposes of the Second Amendment was to protect the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms that would be comparable to the arms held by the military. Then, by virtue of the larger number of unorganized militia and organized militia members relative to the total army, the militia being in essence every able bodied male historically, with females being added by changes in US militia laws circa 1959, and now every able bodied person living in the US being considered part of the unorganized militia, the risk of Governmental tyranny would forever be kept very small. "Gun control" thus implies a negation to some degree of the protections contained in the US Bill of Rights, and the term is thus considered pejorative to many of those who cherish the rights protected by the US Bill of Rights. Some wry commentators even state it stronger, implying that the Second Amendment is what protects the other 9 amendments contained in the US Bill of Rights, which together as the US Bill of Rights is what protects all the rights of US Citizens :-) Yaf (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am curious if you can point to a reliable source behind your idea, or is it your original idea? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No claim to originality at all on these ideas. They have been published in many places. Fundamentally, though, as Noah Webster wrote:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

So, it is really a very old idea, dating from the late 18th Century. Admittedly, the definition under the current US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for a militia has changed a little, to include women, but the fundamental idea is still the same. Yaf (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Navy revolver article

Thanks for the editing/added link to the Colt Navy article --Mcumpston (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pros and cons of muzzle brakes

Hi,

You added in the muzzle brake article that a disadvantage that is often overlooked is decreased accuracy when using muzzle brakes. That might be not easy to scientifically substantiate, since riffled barrels that can fire spin stabilised projectiles without any amount pitch or yaw are very rare in the real world. These irregularities are quickly dampened out by the atmosphere when the spin stabilised projectile start its journey downrange and pose more theoretical than practical problems. I am looking forward to the addition of one or more weblinks leading to factual scientific information on muzzle brake induced accuracy decrease. I personally think muzzle brakes have their pros and cons and the question if it makes sense to use them is highly dependent on things like the employed gun, cartridge, projectile shape, type and style of shooting, brake design, personal preferences of users, if legal rules in a particular jurisdiction or situation allow them, etc., so do not feel criticized by my remarks and edits. Beware that (accuracy) problems caused by things like sub standard design, machining and workmanship are no good examples to neutrally asses the pros and cons of a technical system.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we are in total agreement, then. I concur about sub-standard design and workmanship not being a valid reason whether or not to use any manufactured item. No slight was transmitted, and certainly none was received, regarding your many excellent points here and your edits in the article. I look forward to improving cites and content on this article with you. Finding and adding cites to address shortcomings in the article should not be difficult. Yaf (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I liked your recent additions and edits. I found the conclusions of a Finnish report on this http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/Schalldaempfer/Schalldaempfer.htm website (scroll down to read the report in English) that stated muzzle brakes of various types added 5 to 10 dB(A) noise for the shooter. This is the only source I know of that comes up with measurements and numbers instead of statements like muzzle brakes add noise. The 160 dB(A) near the muzzle you mentioned concurs with the measurement series mentioned on that webpage. With electronic noise cancellation approximately 15 dB(A) extra noise reduction can be gained when using active ear muffs. Those active ear muffs are however expensive. In the European Union (EU) employees are protected by law against noise over 137 dB(A) in professional usage settings. In individual member states like the UK more sensible levels like 120dB(A) are used. The EU demands the noise has to be reduced at the origin in the technically best possible way. So professional fire arms users like hunters, soldiers, police personnel, etc. have to be issued with ear muffs or sound suppressors on fire arms. It is inconceivable that an EU or British employee will not be issued with adequate personal protection means as defined by law, since an employer has to anticipate legal action and compensations in case an employee that used the provided protective gear suffers work induced health damage like deafness. A trick used by indoor shooters to protect against (the tremendous) noise of indoor shooting is to wear good ear plugs + good ear muffs. --Francis Flinch (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of assault rifles AfD

I have hastily knocked together a sample treatment of an alternative format for the aforementioned page and posted it to the article's talk page. As you have weighed in on the previous version, I would invite your comments on the alternate I am proposing. Do you think this would make the page more worth keeping? Is it worth the effort to redo the whole page? Is the whole concept a lost cause? Inquiring minds want to know. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

POV changes on Waco Siege

Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which all articles must follow. Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia; it is not a place to argue a particular point of view. Thank you. this serie of edits [5] appears to be an attempt to make the police force look like a military force, and try to make the force balance more balanced on favor fo the police. The substitution of "National Guard members" for "soldiers" was POV. And the addition of "automatic" on national guard weapons and the addition of "semi-automatic" on the davidians side is specially tendentious because AK-47 are not semi-automatic and you don't assert if those weapons were used by National Guard members anytime on the assault.

P.D.: replacing "people" with "civilians" and "deaths" with "civilian deaths" was also POV trying to make it look like a military conflict, albeit more subtle POV, it's still POV.

As an aside, you also change "compound" for "complex" and "building", why do you do that? what is the source for that change? If you give no source, I might look at the sources myself and revert you if necesary --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do your research before making any more personal attacks such as above. The AK-47 rifles used by the Branch Davidians were semi-automatic, not fully-automatic, rifles. And, yes, the M-16 and MP-5 weapons used by the Government were fully-automatic weapons. Pushing your POV that the Branch Davidians had fully-automatic rifles is a POV push that is not factual. I have proper references for this, as well as for the fact that helicopters were used in the assault, which you removed. Will be adding cites and restoring properly cited source material statements to this article, to counter your obvious POV pushes. Yaf (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if I made it sound like a personal attack. I was a bit tired yesterday and could have made it sound a bit harsher than needed. I assure that my actions and comments were not motivated by anything personal against your edits, it's just making sure that a wikipedia article is using the correct names for stuff.

While checking the article for mention of helicopters being used on the asault, I found a source for helicopter's use, so I noticed that I had done a mistake when deleting that addition of yours, and re-added the helicopters and pointed to that reference. My complaint was that your additions, judging by the edit context, were not adequately sourced because the only source provided did appear to mention any helicopters (P.D.: and couldn't have mentioned them because they weren't used until the final assault day, which had not still happened when the source was written).

About the compound/building thing, here you can see how the CNN calls it "compound" [6]. I'll look for more sources just in case that only the CNN called it like this, and, if I find sources, I'll change the article back to mention compound instead of complex and building. As I said, it's just a matter of using the correct names

I looked at the AK-47 article, and it only mentions one only semi-automatic version, the AKS-47MA1, from Bulgaria, that's why I thought that the ones used by Davinians were probably automatic. I have no problem with you adding the semi-automatic AK-47, as long as, of course, you remember to add also the proper references that you have, so other people can verify it, per the verifiability policy of wikipedia. Adding "automatic" and "semi-automatic" to all weapons would be unnecesary (see next paragraph).

If they were semi-automatic it's relevant to put on the article, since a reader would normally assume those AK-47 were automatic, since the majority of their versions are (maybe it would be clear for an american reader familiarased with US weapon laws). For the other rifles, I see that they are either always automatic or always semi-automatic, so it wouldn't be necessary to specify it on the article. The link to the weapon should be enough. Please notice this sentence on the article and its reference "Most of the weapons were legal semi-automatics; however, the ATF alleged there were also a number of fire-arms that had been illegally modified to fire full-automatic.[5]", so adding semi-automatic to the weapon name would be moot. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I made extensive changes to the infobox, after finding a report on the use of military resources at Waco. It appears that the type of weapon used by National Guard members would not be relevant because they didn't use them nor planned to use them anytime during the siege. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: pushing to keep WP:NPOV on an article is not an "obvious POV push". It's the opposite of it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I misread your initial comments here on my talk page as pushing inaccurate claims of AK-47 full auto use by the Davidians, which would have been factually incorrect, and also pushing US Soldier participation in the assault in place of state level National Guardsmen support, which would have been illegal by the Posse Comitatus Act. Likewise, by your edits deleting Government helicopter use, when helicopters were, in fact, used, it appeared you were pushing some sort of agenda. I would have to say we both should Assume Good Faith more in the future :-) Based on your subsequent edits and additions of cites, it looks like we are largely in agreement, though, and that we both simply want a factual article. That is as it should be! I generally patrol many articles on Wikipedia and try to correct firearms-related inaccuracies contrary to published facts. There is considerable lack of knowledge among many editors concerning firearms, especially for semi-automatic versus fully-automatic weapons. Keep up the good edits! Thanks. Yaf (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you, man! I really need a bit more of good faith :) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On the article, after finding sources, it seems that the davidian leaders bought "39 full sear parts" in addition to AK-47. Am I correct on assuming that those are parts that allow to convert a semi-automatic AK-47 and M-16 into a fully automatic one? or can only the AK-47 be converted? I think there is some duplication on the "materials bought before raid" section of the infobox, because the indictment talks about "parts for fully automatic AK-47 and M-16 rifles," and also talks about "39 full sears parts" and I wanted your opinion on if it is a duplication and if it could be merged like this: "parts for fully automatic AK-47 and M-16 rifles, including 39 full sear parts". Are there any other parts that allow to convert to fully automatic apart from the full sears? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the precise details are somewhat difficult to discuss here, by reason of ATF rules and regs and prosecutions. First Amendment protections don't apply. One can be prosecuted for promulgating details of exactly how to convert a semi-auto into a full auto. I don't wish to go down this path. Technically, each full auto part is considered a machine gun, in and of itself. For example, if you have an AR-15, and break a part, and replace the broken AR-15 part with an M-16 part that is exclusively intended for an M-16, although it may function in either an AR-15 or an M-16, you just broke the law. Hence, if the Davidians had any full auto parts, whether or not they were installed in any AK-47 or AR-15 rifles, then technically they had this many full auto guns by ATF rules, despite not having any functional full auto guns. Similarly, there is a case being prosecuted now that involves an AR-15 clone that was loaned to a friend, fired approximately 800 times without being cleaned, which then malfunctioned, shooting two rounds with one trigger pull before jamming on the third round. The owner who loaned the rifle has been charged with transferring a machine gun, and is facing multiple years in prison for loaning his 20 year old semi-auto AR-15 clone to a less than fastidious friend.Video part 1, Video part 2. Scary stuff, this. Hence, I won't answer any details of how to convert a semi-auto into a full-auto, even for purposes of education, or for editing a Wikipedia article. Yaf (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that the legal situation on "the land of the free" has become as bad as I read on the internets. Now I know why the sear thingies probably don't have an article of its own on the wikipedia. Well, I'll leave it like this for now, since it's the way it was worded on the sources, and rewrite it a bit if that part needs updating some day. On the day of the raid, the AFT claimed that it was ovehelmed by automatic fire but, since most weapons were probably destroyed on the fire, we will never know if they were exaggerating or if the small machine shop helped to convert up to 39 guns. I'm not sure either if there is any video footage of the raid taken by the National Guard helicopters. Thanks for helping, anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Little help?

User:Michael Courtney has been splashing Hydrostatic shock references on popular articles. Could you please join the discussion on the notability of including this entry on cartridge pages? Thanks for the help. For the record, I'm asking a few others with a vested interest. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mallet damping -> Mallet dampening

Why did you move the article without comment? If you don't comment about why you moved it, I'm going to move it back. Ayengar (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A dampener is a standard engineering and music term, used to indicate the reduction of amplitude of oscillations. It has nothing to do with making something wet. A damper, incidentally, is not related to water, either, but refers to a cross-piece in a flu for a stove, used to moderate the heat that is produced by the stove, through reducing air flow. You need to review the meaning of words before arbitrarily going through wikipedia and changing established terms of art about which you are unaware. Mallet dampener is the proper terminology. Mallet damper is not the proper terminology. Yaf (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that you look at Damping. Ayengar (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE don't reverse all of my edits until you've consulted an engineering dictionary. PLEASE!! Ayengar (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Damping is consistent. Damping refers to the mathematical process, often an e^-(at) effect.

A dampener is a device that specifically accomplishes damping within a specific time constant through introducing loss into the oscillations. One term refers to the device, the other to the process. By analogy, drying your clothes (a process, since "ing" indicates a gerund) is not the same concept as a "clothes dryer", although a clothes dryer can dry your clothes.

Damping an engineering design for a barrel, for example, uses a harmonic dampener as the device that does the damping. "Damper" is not the terminology used here.

Yet, in some high rise buildings, "damper" is the term that is used.

The reason for the difference is subtle. A damper accomplishes reduction of oscillations through actively counter-balancing energies to add out of phase, causing a reduction in the amplitude of the oscillations; a dampener, on the other hand, introduces loss to reduce oscillations. Both methods work to achieve damping. But, they work on different principles. Putting this another way, damping works by adding energy out of phase; dampening works by absorbing energy. Is this clear now? (If there is loss introduced, it is a dampener; if you add energy out of phase to the oscillation, it is a damper.) Yaf (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Both are acceptable forms. Chill out. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they work differently. It is not correct to change pre-existing terminology, for example for a Ruger Mini-14 barrel harmonic dampener that the manufacturer calls a harmonic dampener to a harmonic damper. There is no external energy input occurring, only absorption. Yaf (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, got it. My chill out comment was general one for everybody. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I didn't change the title of Tuned mass damper, because it is correct there. Yaf (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Damping emphatically IS the correct engineering term on a number of your edits that I have just reverted, there may be others where dampening might be the correct term and I haven't reverted them as I don't have intimate knowledge of the subject. Could you please desist from wholesale changes to spelling in this manner when it is evident from your text (20:19, 7 April 2008) above you don't have knowledge in this specific area (speaking as a Professional (Chartered) Engineer since 1979) M100 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PhD Engineer here... And, yes, I do have knowledge and experience in this area. Over 30 years. Perhaps its a British English versus American English difference :-) Lets cease making changes to articles like the Ruger Mini-14 that you don't have knowledge of. OK? Yaf (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And, contrary to this edit, it is not about making things wet, either. Yaf (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't edit Ruger Mini-14. On the subject of dampers, over the years I have had discussions with and worked alongside engineers in the USA, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, Sweden and Australia amongst many others. I can categorically state that despite many thousands of mentions of the word damper in an engineering sense, at no stage has the word dampener EVER been mentioned.....other then with reference to cricket and an English "summer". It's certainly not an American English vs English English thing either. M100 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)