User talk:Yaf

Courtesy note

Welcome back! We are glad you decided to un-retire! Since you have returned to editing, I have gone ahead and un-deleted your talk page's history. If you would like to have that history archived instead, please let me know and I will be glad to help. For future reference (which we hope never happens), please note that {{db-user}} should not be used on talk pages; if you wish to exercise your right to vanish, please follow the guideline at WP:RTV. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yaf (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you have returned, even at the risk of SaltyBoatr claiming we are in collusion (see the bottom of this section) SMP0328. (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Consensus building is not collusion, but is simply the way to write better articles. A fundamental tenant of WP is to Assume Good Faith. The AGF principle is often violated, unfortunately. Yaf (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia, and the firearms project, my wayward friend.--LWF (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The time away was good for me -- to decompress and to do a good bit of reading. Did a good bit of handloading, too! Proper perspective requires a tweak now and again from reading new materials:-) Handloading also helps. Yaf (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi belt buckle pistol

That's cool. I don't know anything about the topic/page itself, just doing some de-orphaning. Tulocci (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

.357 Remington Magnum

The only two proper names for the standard .357 are .357 S&W Magnum and .357 Magnum, I admit that some call it the .357 Mag, however .357 Remington Magnum is a complete misnomer. If it were an accepted name for the .357 it would be in Cartridges of theWorld. Someone calling something by the wrong name does not make it correct.

Nate.45 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are the two most common names. As for the only proper names, that is an entirely different point. There are other names, too. The European name, 9x33mmR (Europe), and .357 Remington Magnum, and .357 Mag have also been used at times. Wikipedia is about verifiability. It is clearly verifiable that .357 Remington Magnum is another (although admittedly older) name for the .357 Magnum cartridge. CotW is not the only source about cartridges. (Yes, I have it, too.) We should not limit Wikipedia to using only one source for determining verifiability. Multiple sources are best for making sure to avoid holes in the coverage on Wikipedia in articles that would otherwise come from only using one source. Any reliable, verifiable source is acceptable. The older editions of the Loadbooks called it the .357 Remington Magnum. As for the newer editions of the Loadbooks, yes, they now call it by the now more common .357 Magnum name. (I have Loadbooks with both names, as well as additional reloading books with loads for the .357 Remington Maximum, an extended .357 Magnum, which I use in a T/C chambered in .357 Rem Max. Remington did research on the .357 Magnum cartridge, and extended it for use in the Dan Wesson, Ruger, and T/C pistols. Their name also got attached to the .357 Magnum cartridge in some sources around the same time.) Just because one reference (CotW) doesn't list a cartridge synonym is no reason to claim the synonym should not be used on Wikipedia. I added a cite for the older .357 Remington Magnum name, which you insisted on removing just because CotW doesn't list this alternative name as a synonym. This alternative name is clearly verifiable. It just doesn't happen to be mentioned in CotW. All of the verifiable synonyms should be in the article. Yaf (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)