User talk:AliveFreeHappy

  NOTICE: If you talk to me here, I will reply here.

Award

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		message Arman Cagle (Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your hard work in wikipedia and hope you edited some more!Arman Cagle (Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state)‎

Hi AliveFreeHappy. I think reverting my removal of the text claiming that State and local LEOs have no responsibility to enforce Federal law is incorrect. The decision used to validate the argument states that it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass legislation requiring the local CLEOs to help the Federal government regulate. It does not address enforcement. I am not saying that they do, but that is not within the scope of this decision. Cases where State and local LEOs have enforced Federal law have been challenged in Federal courts and it is generally held that they can, but again there is no implication on whether they shall. Even if the first part of the statement remains, the second part should definitely be removed. It is not sourced and makes a very bold statement. The attitudes of the the thousands of law enforcement agencies toward Federal weapons laws are generalised without any source backing up the claim. Movementarian (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the reference to "regulate" in your edit comment, but do not see that the sources given support it. In fact, they seem more inclined to support the paragraph as it was written, which is why I reverted it. The sources given do seem to address enforcement. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I did remove the final unsourced "commentary". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the issue of whether State an locals are not required to enforce Federal law was addressed in the decision; however that isn't important. My main concern was the last part of the reverted material. Thanks for looking at it again. Cheers! Movementarian (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re "state and local enforcement of federal law": "We held in New York that Congress cannot comple the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program". (bold added) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Movementarian (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic programm analysis criteria is having a wikipedia article

"remove non-notable - criteria is having a wikipedia article" I think, this criteria is bad. There can be some dyn. analysis solution, which have little information about them to form a full article, but still beeing notable enough to be mentioned in the list. `a5b (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Art student scam, I responded on neutral board

Did you also read these?

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1387069/US-arrests-200-young-Israelis-in-spying-investigation.html The Telegraph
• http://www.heraldscotland.com/five-israelis-were-seen-filming-as-jet-liners-ploughed-into-the-twin-towers-on-september-11-2001-1.829220 Sunday Herald
• http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Request_third_party_input_on_.22Art_Student_Scam.22_article_Split Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your update. I have read all the sources you mentioned, but I don't find your argument compelling. But my opinion isn't binding in anyway, I was simply responding to the request for a 3rd party to review the issue. I was unfamiliar with it until I ready the article and your sources. However, I don't think that as it stands it's really in good shape. Perhaps with more research you will be able to flesh it out and create a good article, but there will need to be some work done before that. If you haven't read the WP:PILLARS as others have suggested, I think you should. It helped me a lot to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide links to sources you say outright dismiss the allegations other than the post. The post did not bother to obtain the dea document. Did you watch the fox special? Did you read this about the dea document. Die Zeit has a link to the Dea document and so does salon. Your comments are all very vague. Can you explain yourself in detail?

"To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers.

Of course, the agent (or agents) who wrote the memo could also have fabricated or embellished the field reports. That does not seem to have been the case. Salon contacted more than a half-dozen agents identified in the memo. One agent said she had been visited six times at her home by "art students." None of the agents wished to be named, and very few were willing to speak at length, but all confirmed the veracity of the information. " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read every source you have given, including die Zeit. I find the event similar to the more recent Shirley Sherrod event. Some item gets injected into the news stream and is later contradicted. But if you only view the early reports or give them more weight, you can be lead to an incorrect conclusion. I did several variants of google searches as "web", "news", and "books" and there just don't seem to be any strongly reliable sources. As I've mentioned, if you can find some other than the ones you keep repeating, it might be different. Be assured that I have read what you've linked to and I appreciate the effort you put into it, but I don't reach the same conclusion that you do. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz, the sunday herald, Insight, salon.com, the forward, democracy now, the newspaper creative loafing, these all came after the 12 sentence washington post article claimed to debunk it. Most of the sources came after the washington post.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The later sources all treat spying allegations as at the very least inconclusive and not as a "myth." In 2004, canada took the 2001 allegations of spying on the u.s. so seriously that they also worried they were being spied on 3 years later.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

All your sources seem to lead back to the alleged DEA paper which the government claims was a hoax. This puts the entire story at the very least into the category of conspiracy theory if not outright myth. You need sources that somehow validate the DEA paper if you want to portray this as reality. IE, not someone who says they have a copy of the paper, or that they've seen the paper. You need someone authoritative who can validate that the paper IS what people claim it is. Otherwise it's just a theory. This is a similar problem to the Killian documents controversy - having a document without having it authoritatively authenticated doesn't have a lot of meaning. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You're also forgetting the NCIX report posted on the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive website. Which sources other than the post claim to "debunk" or dismiss the allegations. Once again, later sources treat the allegations as at least inconclusive. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unique Drobo design not supported by 3rd party data recovery software and services.

> Unlike standard Linux, proprietary Linux or Windows Storage Server 2008 SP2 Standard Edition systems which have third party recovery packages & recovery services, there is no software package that will recover a Drobo pack. Once a Drobo system crashes, data corruption, or is accidentally formatted, the data is gone for ever.

Over the last 6 months I have simulated an operator error format using 3 1 tb fresh disks, [1] format - [2] add known data - [3] format, then as per http://support.datarobotics.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/293/kw/raw/r_id/100004 tested:

Data Rescue PC v3.0 -- Active@ Partition Recovery v5.5.0.3 -- Stellar Phoenix Windows Data Recovery v4.0 -- Easeus Data Recovery Wizard Pro v4.3.6 & 5.0.1 -- R-Studio v5.2.130723 -- Disk Internals Raid Recovery v1.6

I have been talking to Data Rescue PC, and they have no experience with Drobo. Most vendors, just say try it, but know nothing about Drobo.

Platform: Win Vista 64 -- Unibrain v5.70 Firewire driver -- Also tested with MB's USB v2.0 -- MB ASUS P5Q -- 4g memory -- APC BackUPS 1100 for the PC -- APC BackUPS 1000 on the test bench Drobo v2

Each run takes 2-3 days, plus analysis. Often the Firewire connection disconnects, so a new run is done with the USB port.

The issue here is that I have recovered RAID drives and formatted drives from other external drives that run under standard, albeit many proprietary, formats.... I have recovered from LaCie and HP boxes (MS Server), Drobo lets the user think the data is safe, but a quick Google search under "Drobo Recover" reveals a pattern. As the Drobo drives get older, it's a disaster in the making, due to a false sense of security.

FWIW, I'm on the DroboSpace forum, and noted how they cleverly crashed their open forum and reopened as a closed forum after many negative and unresolved issues occurred. Their tech support is very nice and 'appears' helpful, but there is no real resolution to the basic recovery issue.

How do we mention, in a non biased & factual manner, that there is no specific Drobo engineered or 3rd party Drobo specific file recovery program?

The process you describe would be characterized on wikipedia as original research and isn't allowed. What you need to do is find reliable sources that are verifiable to include such statements. For example if there is an article on CNET that discusses data recovery with drobo, such a source would be very helpful. But simply discussing your own attempts isn't the process on wikipedia. The problem with drobo is that there just hasn't been that much written about it yet. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope you do not mind

Hi AliveFreeHappy, I quoted you here. If you mind, I will take my comment off, just tell me. BTW your user name made me just a little be more alive, free and happy :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am purposely avoiding the AFD in my role as a disinterested 3rd party. However, using my comment seems to be a fair representation of what I said. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I should have asked before I added your comments. Sorry about that, and thank you for allowing them to stay.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok

Removed because I have been spanked not only by the website owner ( CT website) for even listing the site here, but here as well..So whats done is done..Medrate (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sourcing content on Bruce Harris

I have made a pledge to recognize the work that people have done to add sourced content to articles and want you to know that I noticed and appreciate your efforts at Bruce Harris. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello, AliveFreeHappy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Katie Couric.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and give it a look see tonight if I can. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

460 Weatherby Mag

Added in a schematic diagram. But it doen't fit well to the page. Can we do something about it? DeusImperator (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried a new size - it confused me for a bit. What do you think? Too big? Too small? Too ?? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation internal format in Bruce Harris

Discuss at Talk:Bruce Harris, please. --Lexein (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrice Martinez

Why did you delete the information stating that RADA does not have and records of such actress? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it was original research. We can't do research like look for someone in a database and then write about it here. If you have a reliable source that says they don't have records, then we can use it. Otherwise, it's not allowed, especially on biographies. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It seems like she might have used another name such as Patricia instead of Patrice which is very probable, but I see how that might be going overboard. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she might have used some other name. That's the kind of reason that we only use proper sources. Thanks for the update. I was trying to find some good sources myself, but it seems difficult. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

7.62x39 edit

I don't know where you could find me one, but if you can source data that supports a 7.62x39 round going at 7,700ft/s then be my guest to prove me wrong.

I didn't change it just to annoy you, I looked at your source and it actually claims:

"The standard military load for the 7.62x39 fires a 123 grain FMJ bullet (SD .182) at a muzzle velocity of 2350 fps."

You have mixed up fps and m/s, honest mistake, but it really frustrates me when you subsequently send a message telling me I'm wrong and instead of reviewing your edit you just repost it.

I lack the experience with wikipedia's interface to do it myself so I'll leave it to you.

Sorry is I come across as impatient, it's a sorry excuse but I'm tired and should be doing something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaterobbie (talk • contribs) 04:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it so that values are in the correct order. But I was reverting because people kept putting in values that weren't matching the source used. In such a case people can either change the source and the data, or simply add a 3rd or 4th load. Also people were using the template incorrectly with "this or that" etc that doesn't work right. But I think it's going now. Thanks for pointing out the reversed conversion. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I started the new William Ellison page. It is currently a Temp page

Geo8rge (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oprah edit

Hi AliveFreeHappy, as I said on Talk:Oprah, would you have time to make the edit to the article, based on what you said? I feel having a 3rd party do the edit will make things easier and avoid returning to an impasse. Ashmoo (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I could, but if we want to maintain my usefulness as a disinterested 3rd party, then having me edit the article myself could be problematic. I'd prefer to give the opinion and have you guys move forward. Once I start doing edits myself there, I'm no longer disinterested. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for some assistance in the .460 Wby Mag

Hi,

Need some input regarding two topics in the .460 Weatherby Magnum talk pages. I need some consensus regarding these sections SAAMI vs CIP and the proposed section regarding Available Ammunition. DeusImperator (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I made some comments on Talk:.460 Weatherby Magnum in response. Thanks for the alert - I was on the road. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

700 Hubel Express assistance

AliveFreeHappy-- Could you set up the 700 Hubel Express page to look like the 585 Hubel Express page. And get it in the Stub Class so it won't be deleted. I'm really not good at programming, I can't type, I have a barb wire fence internet connection, turtle slow. Thankyou- (Hubel458 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

I started on it. Do you more info on the last article on the list of references? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I figured out your refs and did some basic cleanup. The thing to do now is to take the references you've given and attribute them to specific claims in the article as "inline" references. If you don't know how, we can show you. Or if you can point me to a particular page/paragraph in one of your sources and what paragraph/sentence it supports in the article, I can assist. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

.450/400 Nitro Express articles

There are 2 .450/400 Nitros that need some attention. .450/400 2⅜-inch BPE, Nitro for BP & Nitro Express and the .450/400 3¼-inch BPE, Nitro for BP & Nitro Express. As you suggested these should be moved to a less cumbersome name. A generic name as you suggested would be far better. Can we get some input on this. Also, while the fraction is technically correct in the naming of the cartridge there are no 3/8 button or 1/2 buttons on keyboards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusImperator (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll go to those articles and make my naming suggestions on the talk page like we did for the .700 - unless you get there first. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons I hadn't done anything yet was I was wondering if we shouldn't just combine the two articles as well... what do you think? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about reverting document compilation in US v. Miller

Hi AliveFreeHappy. I don't understand why you so quickly reverted my citation of the Patrick Aultice compilation of documents in United States v. Miller. You commented that the compilation was not "encyclopedic," yet it contains copies of what seem to be virtually all the legal documents filed in the case. While Mr. Aultice presents some of his own opinions, and other research, his attempt to faithfully reproduce the actual court documents seems to me to be a worthy contribution. I would like to respectfully ask if you would be kind enough to take another look at the compilation of documents, and to consider the possibility that the documents may be of legitimate historical interest to researchers (legal and social science historians). I believe the document reproductions are valuable because they enable a reconstruction of the case according to a time line and the legal events involved. It is possible these factors may not appeal to you personally, but I think that it is well established that historians rely on original documents.Yowzemz (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand the historians rely on original documents. However, wikipedia does not, in fact use of original documents is discouraged and often against policy. There were several issues with your edit. First, information should rely on secondary sources. Unless someone is talking about Mr Aultice's web site in reliable sources, it is not something we should be talking about. Also, I don't know how his web site fits wikipedia's verifiability standards. The site "might" be considered in the external links section, but even that isn't a sure thing. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Courteous question about your reversion

Hi AliveFreeHappy, on yesterday evening I put a friendly, courteous message on this page explaining that I didn't understand your reason for reverting my reference to a source of electronic copies of all the original legal documents filed in United States v. Miller (1939), and shortly thereafter notice that my message was deleted without comment. You so quickly deleted my reference, I wasn't sure that you had looked at all of it; nor did I understand how the original legal documents would not be of considerable interest to legal and social historians. Your sole comment was that the entry was not "encyclopedic" as I wrote; perhaps that was not the best word to use, but the source is certainly an exhaustive compilation of all the original documents in the case. I am respectfully asking if you would be kind enough to consider taking another look at the entire compilation at http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/miller_compilation.html. I will certainly appreciate your response on this, because I don't understand how what I posted was NOT relevant and useful to legal and social historians. Thanks in advance for considering this message. If you'd like to do an e-mail on this, please let me know; if you'd like to discuss it on the phone, please let me know how to get a hold of you; or I will be glad to provide my telephone number. Yowzemz (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I did reply yesterday, you probably missed it, but you can read it above. I did not delete your comment, I simply moved it to the bottom to keep the page in chronological order, as talk-pages are designed to be. If you're curious, take a quick look at WP:Talk#Layout. It makes it easier to keep track and use it the same way all other pages are used.

Re your other question, please look at the response I made previously. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

6x45mm replacement on talk pages

Ok we have a replacement which will need to be copied and pasted to the article. I do have the InfoBOx # . I'll but those in later. The article as it is in the talk page does circumvent copyright issues but will need to be cited correctly. I can do this sometime tomorrow. A section regarding performance could be added in DeusImperator (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it all in place. We just need to wikify and fix the refs now. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with messaging

Hi AFH, I hate posting this question here as it has nothing to do with the project, but do you know how to e-mail someone on Wiki group DeusImperator (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to do. But if you want you can reach me by clicking the E-mail this user link from my talk page. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusImperator (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

George B. Boomer

I have supported the retention of the article because it is verifiable. However, I have edited the article to show that authoritative sources do not show a promotion of Colonel Boomer to general or an award of brevet general rank and have removed his name from the list of Union generals. My comment in the edit discussion is as follows: Colonel Boomer led a brigade between February 12, 1863 and May 22, 1863 when he was killed in the Vicksburg campaign. Nonetheless, none of the authoritative sources of substantive rank or brevet rank generals show him as receiving a promotion to or brevet award of general officer rank. Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., Civil War High Commands, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8047-3641-3; Hunt, Roger D. and Brown, Jack R., Brevet Brigadier Generals in Blue. Olde Soldier Books, Inc.,, Gaithersburg, MD, 1990. ISBN 1-56013-002-4; Warner, Ezra J., Generals in Blue. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1964. ISBN 0-8071-0882-7; United States War Department, The Military Secretary's Office, Memorandum Relative to the General Officers in the Armies of the United States During the Civil War, 1861-1865. (Compiled from Official Records, almost certainly by General Marcus Wright.) 1906. http://www.archive.org/details/memorandumrelati05unit, retrieved August 5, 2010. The two sources that I found that describe Colonel Boomer's command and actions in the Vicksburg campaign, especially the Battle of Champion Hill, also make no reference to his promotion to or award of general officer or brevet general officer rank. Sifakis, Stewart, Who Was Who in the Civil War, p. 62. Facts on File Publications, New York, 1988. ISBN 0-8160-1055-2; Smith, Timothy B., Champion Hill: Decisive Battle for Vicksburg. Savas Beattie, New York, NY, 2004 (Paperback, 2006). ISBN 1-932714-19-7. I have also edited the new article on George B. Boomer accordingly. I think that Colonel Boomer's service, actions, sacrifice and rank all merit his inclusion in Wikipedia and would like to commend you for taking notice of him and giving him his due. However, I do not think the description of Colonel Boomer as a brevet Union general can be verified. Also, as Ezra Warner states in Generals in Blue, even if an officer of lower rank commanded a brigade for some period of time, that does not make him a general if he was not appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate even though he made have done a general's job for some period of time (which some brevet generals in fact did not do).Donner60 (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the assist. I didn't know anything about him before working on the article and just tried to do the best I could. Sounds like you have some good Civil War books. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I have a good collection. I have been buying history, but mainly Civil War, books for many years. Recently I have bought from Amazon a few dozen books written in the past few years to update the collection or fill in some gaps. Many of them are "used-very good", but almost all in very good shape, probably remainders in most cases. Quite a few have been priced under $10, even though some have been hardcovers. I have also gotten a few of the newer reference books at under the cover price.Donner60 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Note about Alphascript Publishing

Hi, AliveFreeHappy. In the Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 page, you've referenced a VDM Publishing book: Miller, Frederic P. (2009). Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. Alphascript Publishing. p. 84. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Do you know what kinds of books are produced by this publishing house? See: User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books, User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources, VDM Publishing, and a scanned example. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I was unaware of the issue. At any rate that are plenty of fine high-quality sources on the topic, so trimming the poor or even mediocre is a good idea. It helps protect the article from future AFD issues. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

ICL

I have moved User/AliveFreeHappy/ICL cartridges to User:AliveFreeHappy/ICL cartridges. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 22:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry. Thanks. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

My tentative return

Yeah, it's been a while. Life got in the way, and I just didn't have the energy to do more than minor editing, so I stopped logging in. I logged in so I could upload an image for the scanography article, and noticed some messages on my talk page. I did see the additions to the glossary, and if I'd stayed around last year, I probably would have pushed on the project page to get some people to contribute.

The glossary stub I created by grabbing all the terms from a couple of existing glossaries; I removed the definitions, since copying those would have been a copyright issue, but the lists of terms are, by my understanding, excluded by law from copyright coverage. I don't think I'm up to jumping back into heavy-duty editing right now, but I'll try to pop in to my account periodically. If you want to organize a push on getting the glossary article filled out, I'd certainly be willing to take a section or two and do some work. At least the glossary article should be fairly free of controversy; it's the controversy and endless arguments over article content that just wear me down... scot (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bummer - I know just what you mean. The whole 2A and right to bear arms articles are hopeless sometimes. But I find relative safety in the core firearms and cartridge articles themselves which mostly avoid the madness. I've also been working on a couple of pieces aboutfirearms notability as well as reliable firearms sources but not much feedback so far. And I'm working on Category:Unassessed Firearms articles trying to at least tag as stub or start and whether it needs in image. But each one ends up leading me to others that aren't tagged, etc. so it's a big job. I also bought a new .45-70 over the weekend. It's an 1886 repro and the metal butt-plate gave me a dandy of a bruise. ;-) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What to do about Automated code review article?

Hi. You had posted a discussion request asking if the Automated code review article should be merged with the List of tools for static code analysis page. I think the Automated code review page merits it's own page given research and external articles on this topic. And there are a variety of software tools (from static code analysis to IDE type tools) that help automate the review process. However, I also found another Wikipedia article titled Code reviewing software that overlaps with the content of the Automated code review article. So there is lots of duplications.

Therefore, I propose that we merge the non tools reference information from Automated code review and Code reviewing software into one article. I am open to using one of the existing article titles or coming up with something new. And then we also create a new list of tools page (e.g. List of tools for automated code review) that includes static code analysis tools, IDE tools, and other tools.

What do you think? Jabraham mw (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Gun politics in Australia

Hi AliveFreeHappy, I am pleased to see you drop in on Gun politics in Australia, and hope you will contribute. But I am puzzled; how is this a start-class article to WPGUNS? ChrisPer (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

start-class in this case in that I didn't have a chance to do a full assessment at the moment, but it's definitely more than a stub. It lets us know that we need to do a full review on it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I am the creature lurking under the bridge at that article so glad to have your perspective in there. ChrisPer (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Jonson Cartridges Deletion

AliveFreeHappy, I have contributed to the Jonson cartridges articles and am distressed at having them deleted because the rounds have been part of the shooting world since the 1980s. Guns for them are made in the US and Australia and are being shot currently. Articles about building Jonson rifles have been posted on forums, including the Chuck Hawks forum, one of the largest forums in the firearms world. I don't think a lot of research has gone into the reasons for deletion. Perhaps the article isn't that good but I am in contact with the inventor and can clarify the history, etc. with him if necessary. For example, the inventor shared the drawings for inclusion in Commons so that issue can be withdrawn, as I am certain most of the issues can be clarified.

I would appreciate if the articles that have already been deleted can be replaced until we can work things out amicably. If, after a proper discussion (these articles were only put up a couple weeks ago for deletion, why so fast) it is determined that this is not a proper subject for Wiki, there will be no problem here.

The real problem is that I don't know enough about operations to even find how to enter the discussion. It would seem somebody would have notified me or at least done the proper due diligence to find out that these cartridges were the inspiration for the Lazzeroni short magnums and the basis for all the Winchester, Remington and Ruger short magnum cartridges that make up one of the largest segments of the gun business. Thanks for any help you might throw my way on getting this situation cleared up. 100%BulletProof TALK 13:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to "why so fast" AfD discussions are one week. Sometimes they are extended for an extra week or two, but this is not required.

In response to "We can ask the inventor" such research isn't really how wikipedia works. It's called in wiki terms original research and is specifically not allowed. What articles are based in is verifiable reliable sources. In a nutshell, if we want to create an article about a particular cartridge, it needs to have non-trivial mention in multiple reliable sources.

These cartridges failed on that account, since we were unable to find any reliable sources. Note that forums, self-published sites, etc are not considered reliable. If you are aware of magazine articles, books, etc that mention these cartridges then we could look at recreating the articles.

The basic criteria for creating an article is that the topic must be notable. As mentioned above, this means that magazines, books, scholarly papers, etc are discussing the topic. Again, we were unable to find such sources outside of forums which don't count for WP:Notability.

Additionally, the articles were full of unverifiable assertions about cartridge performance, uses, market acceptance, influence etc. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. We can't simply take the inventors say-so, otherwise all wikipedia articles would be extremely suspect, based on inventors claims.

So basically there was a lot of issues with the article and after looking at it and trying to find sources to backup the claims, we were unable to validate the claims in the article, or even find any reliable sources that talk about the cartridges. Again, if you are aware of such, it would be extremely helpful. If for example your contact with the inventor could produce a list of magazine articles, mentions in books, etc then we'd have a good foundation to start from.

If you haven't checked it out yet, I'd recommend reading the 5 pillars which describes how wikipedia works. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will certainly be more aware of the wiki constraints on future contributions. 100%BulletProof TALK 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)