User talk:Asams10

Archiving old discussions:

Ruger AC556

Yeah, that looks good. That's probably a better option than keeping its own article. Good work. Parsecboy 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.351SL?

Unless you've got a source that can substantiate a special variant of the Thompson was not made in .351, do me a favor, don't revert it again. I'm not the one who has to "prove it". Trekphiler (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible for a variant of the tommygun to shoot a cartridge nearly twice as long and powerful, period. Thompson made a rifle that fired the 30-06, however that wasn't a variant of the Tompson Submachinegun. I'll continue to revert until you can provide a source that is legitemate enough to overcome the bullshit factor. --Asams10 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather hard to prove a negative, that something did not happen. The burden of proof is on the person makeing the original claim. This said, there were TSMG variants for larger cartridges. Two or three were made for .30 Carbine, and at least one was scaled up for .30-06 as a possible BAR substitute/suppliment. As you might imagine there wasn't much interchangable on the latter variant; the only parts in commom appear to be the trigger housing, buttstock, and pistol grip. You can see photos of them in the Collector Grade Publications book "Thompson: The American Legend." There was also a piece in "Gun Digest" showing these, say the 1992 edition. D.E. Watters (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KRISS Super V XSMG

The article is about the XSMG, so the correct name for the article is KRISS Super V XSMG. The system is called KRISS Super V, but the subset is XSMG. The Super V can apply to other variations. Please move the article back or I will get an administrator to do it, to avoid an edit war. Chessy999 16:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as an XSMG; that's marketing hype by a company that seems to only produce prototypes and hype. --Asams10 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes there is see the homepage for the firearm. Discuss the issue on the talk page before moving it again and build a consensus or post a RENAME afd +tag. Chessy999 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article at the product homepage, note the name they use: KRISS Super V XSMG] In the case of Wikipedia, we note the manufacturer's acronyn first, this case TDI. Chessy999 19:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where were you? The article was renamed a while ago. --Asams10 21:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your alternative userbox

Asams10, excellent alternative firearms box. With your permission I would like to place it on the project page, with one small edit so others (such as myself) who so wish can use it. Do not worry about the edit, it would just be to remove the extraneous 's' at the end of the phrase "personal firearms". All of this would be with your permission of course.--LWF 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for looking. It's public now, please feel free to edit and add it to the page. I'm going to create a 'military style' box shortly so the martial firearms fans can show off. --Asams10 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea.--LWF 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:M16_rifle/Archive01#Original_Research

Back in April 2007, you gave a fellow hell about original research concerning the introduction of LSA for use with the M16A1. I finally got a hold of a copy of the Ichord Subcommittee's hearing transcripts. The relative merits of the issue general purpose lubricant PL Special (VV-L-800) versus Dri-Slide and LSA (MIL-L-46000A) are discussed in detail. LSA was originally designed as a lube for the M61A1 Vulcan. Its thick consistency was intended to help keep it from being thrown off of the high speed rotating parts of the Vulcan. Most never considered ever trying LSA on infantry small arms, as it was thought to be too thick and would lead to increased fouling under adverse conditions. The adequacy of VV-L-800 became an issue after Michigan Governor George Romney (Mitt's father) included containers of Dri-Slide, a moly-disulphide lubricant, in Christmas packages sent to US troops in South Vietnam in 1965. Despite rave reviews from combat troops, Army testing of Dri-Slide later indicated that it was inferior to VV-L-800. Marine testing disagreed with the Army's evaluation, and the USMC purchased additional quantities of Dri-Slide for use as a supplemental lubricant. In the meantime, someone finally decided to give LSA a try on infantry small arms. After testing with the M14, M16, M16A1, and M60, it was decided by both services to replace VV-L-800 with LSA. The changeover in issue and instruction occurred during the tenure of the Ichord subcommittee. D.E. Watters (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and the research. I just re-read what I had written. Indeed, I did give another user hell, but I gave him hell for not knowing what the F*%& he was talking about with regards to magazine construction. I did mention LSA, however that was not the focus of my criticism. As for original research, I've seen the research you mentioned years ago and, though it was a factor and was, indeed, statistically significant, magazine reliability was and still is the overwhelming problem. It stems from two basic facts. First, the feed lips are easilly deformed and, second, the double-curve design shuffles the ammunition as it feeds and impedes reliable feeding. I'll name the recent tests involving the M4 vs. other firearms, all but one of which used the double-curved magazine. The one that didn't use that magazine was twice as reliable as the other three. I'm sure another $1M in research would isolate the same issues that have been isolated over and over in numerous test throughout the decades, the magazine is crap. --Asams10 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: The 30rd magazine wasn't a regular issue item in 1966/67. The straight 20rd mags were the standard issue then. The Ichord Subcommittee fixated on the troops' belief that the 20rd mags would not work well when loaded with more than 18rds. Oh, and I noticed that in his testimony before the Ichord Subcommittee, Colt's Koni Ito cited the change to LSA as one of the three changes that would turn things around for the M16A1. The other two were the introduction of the new buffer and chrome-plated chambers. D.E. Watters (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, true, and true, as far as I know though I don't recall the actual text of the testimony, I recall reading a summation of the testimony at one time. Again, thanks for the info. I don't think we have an issue then. I was speaking then and am speaking now of the 20rd magazines, not the 30's. I agree with the information about the LSA, but I didn't disagree with that. What I disagreed with and 'gave him hell' about was this statement: "Another cause of stoppages unrelated to the rifle's maintenance was the inadequate hardening of the aluminum magazine shell. When loaded with 20 rounds and then unused for a few weeks (a common situation), the pressure of the magazine spring pressing up on the loaded rounds would slowly cause the lips of the magazine to spread apart slightly, sometimes just enough to allow the top two rounds to be pushed forward when the bolt was released, jamming the gun. Proper hardening of the magazine shell reduced the extent of the problem, but throughout the Vietnam War troops were advised to load only 18 rounds unless the magazine was to be used immediately." That was what most of the discussion was about. What I actually reverted in regards to the LSA was the following statement: "The new lubricant, LSA (Lube oil, Semi-fluid, Automatic weapons, MIL-L-46000), greatly reduced the number of stoppages due to fouling build-up, but was still no substitute for frequent (up to 5-a-day) cleaning." This is simply not true. It wasn't due to fouling buildup (that was solved by the powder change) it was due to lubrication. Also, the part about the 5-a-day cleaning was inflamatory crap. The M-16 had to be cleaned frequently, but this is rediculous. --Asams10 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a July 1967 military flier titled "M16 Rifle Tips" stated that cleaning 3 to 5 times a day may not be too much. It also repeated the recommendation not to load more than 18 to 19 rounds in a 20rd magazine. D.E. Watters (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we differ any in our opinion. Whether or not it was recommended to clean 3-5 times a week, that was still crap. The reason for the cleaning regime was the bore and chamber due to non-chrome-lined barrels. Troops were also advised that they did not need to clean the XM16's. To this day, troops download their 30rd magazines to 28 rounds. In fact, they are advised to do that... the reasoning goes that since it was good for the 20 rounders, it's still good. Can't hurt, right? --Asams10 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MINIMI

Are you having any problems displaying the MINIMI page? I think the way it is now gives it some elegant symmetry. What do you think? Koalorka (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I've got the entire text with a gap of about half the screen the way it was. I'll mess with my prefs. Thanks. --Asams10 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

Perhaps you should take your own advice. You have acted quite hostile towards a couple of people in that discussion on the Glock page. I did not post a personal attack against you. However, if you perceive it as one, perhaps you should consider how others perceive your actions. Alyeska (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did post a personal attack here. Call it what you want and stop bugging me. If you take what I say the wrong way, uh, I can't help you nor do I care much. I'm debating with ideas. While you might consider that a personal attack, that certainly says volumes about your ability to be objective, now, doesn't it? Please refrain from further personal attacks. --Asams10 (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asam, just a piece of constructive criticism. Whether you intend to or not, you do come across as a bit abrasive from time to time. Sf46 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who follows my edits and discussions knows that I debate people's ideas when I feel that they are wrong. Am I apologetic? If I'm wrong, yep. Prove me wrong. Abrasive? Yep. Abusive or personal? Nope. Civil? I try my hardest to be civil. When it looks like I'm not being civil, step back and read what I'm responding to. If everybody loves me and agrees with me, I'm doing something wrong. --Asams10 (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abrasive is not civil. Abrasive is agressive, hostile even. Hostile actions are taken as insulting ones. You accused me of a personal attack for merely making constructive criticism. Your actions are sufficently hostile to be construed as openly insulting. You really need to look in the mirror. Treat others how you would prefer to be treated. Alyeska (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A threat? You have got to be kidding me. And leave you alone? You saw fit to report me to the administrators. Alyeska (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring on Glock articles

Both you and MalikCarr are edit warring on the Glock articles. WP:3RR is not an entitlement to make 3 changes per article, it's a hard stop limit, and edit warring in general can be accomplished with 2 reverts or less per article if there's a consistent pattern.

Please stop reverting and take it back to the central article talk page.

I am warning both of your accounts simultaneously because you're both behaving in the same manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. He started it!!! I was still discussing. --Asams10 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please have some more faith in my knowledge of protocol - as a frequent editor of fiction articles, I am very well versed in the 3RR. Hell, I've been accused of "gaming the system" due to how often I report people at the 3RRV page. I am quite well aware of what it says, and what the intentions behind it are. MalikCarr (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coulda fooled me. I warned you because I'm required to warn you. But you already knew that being well versed at editing fiction articles... an area that I'm not likely to bother you in. --Asams10 (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and personal attacks

This edit [1] on Talk:Glock pistol violated the Wikipedia policies on civility and no personal attacks. You could have stated that he was edit warring again without being rude or attacking him, but you did so anyways. Please don't do that again. You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know what the expectations are for users behaving in a mature and adult manner.

I issued him a short block for ongoing edit warring, which he clearly did after clearly being warned not to, but I need you to not make the problem worse by being rude here. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be painful... but okay. --Asams10 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. You just did it again. I agreed with you, and then you post a response to me that is overly hostile and insulting because you thought I disagreed with you. Alyeska (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Not sure why you're saying you agreed with me when the point I was arguing was a point you had made that the Glock 22 article had a significant amount of info in it. You're taking it personal when it was your statement I was arguing against. I don't even know you. --Asams10 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop ignoring people. You have continued to act incredibly hostile. Your response to me today was extremely hostile and unwelcome. Do not ignore this point. You have been repeatedly warned about excessive hostility in your postings, and yet you continue. Alyeska (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was I ignoring you? I read your statement and your argument and responded. Ignoring? Nope. Hostile? How? Sarcastic, yes. Abrasive, maybe. You're taking my statements personal when they are aimed at your arguments, not at you personally. --Asams10 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your discussion page I commented that you argued with me over nothing AND that you are acting overly hostile. Your response to me commented on the argument and completely IGNORED the issue of your hostility. I am not the only one to comment on this. When you reported me to the admins, people pointed out YOUR hostility and that my criticisms were quite valid. Alyeska (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore it, I dismissed it. I'm not being hostile. I reverted your personal attacks, yes, but that's because they were uncalled for and had nothing to do with the discussion. It is a discussion board, not a forum for you to personally attack me as some vendetta for you losing debates with me in the past. --Asams10 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no justification to dismiss it. You have been repeatedly warned by others. You accuse me of personal attacks when your behavior is far worse. Look In The Mirror. I am not personally attacking you. I am making constructive and accurate criticism of your behavior. And I never lost a debate with you in the past. Our last discussion was the Walther P22 and the V-Tech discussion. I agreed with your opinion, but abided by the group consensus. So how can I loose a debate when non existed? Once again you are acting extremely hostile. Trying to claim victory over someone as if there is some sort of rivalry going on. Alyeska (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glock 21SF?

What was wrong with having the Glock 21SF info under the template? There is information for the Glock 18 and the other two variants, so I thought it was the best place to stick it in. I don't know where else I can dump it without it looking out of place. Hayden120 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the table doesn't need those comments as it's being used in the article. Those notes are irrelevant in an article that combines all of the other models. --Asams10 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the Glock 21SF notes in the article after you deleted from the template, if that's what you are talking about. Hayden120 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glock variant template

Could you please modify your chart to indicate the size of each model (Standard, Compact, Subcompact, Competition, and Slimline), possibly the best place would be a third column after the "Cartridge" column? Hayden120 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS 450D

Where on the Canon JP site does it say April? I can see on the Canon UK site March... -- Ratarsed (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the reference again. I got them mixed up, it was the US site. --Asams10 (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's different dates for different regions -- I've updated to reflect. -- Ratarsed (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double-stack magazines

I noticed you reverted an edit to Magazine (firearms) I made about double stack magazines. Even though the ammunition in a double-stack or column mag is not touching the one in the stack directly above it and therefore don't have true double columns, those magazines are known as such and I think different enough from normal single stack magazines to warrant a mention in the article. Do you agree? Ops101ex (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's incorrect to refer to a staggered magazine as a 'double-column' magazine. It further adds to the confusion when you talk about tripple and quad column magazines. In fact, the Spectre uses a double column magazine and is the only production weapon I'm aware of that utilized a true double column magazine. Ram-Line produced a double-column, single-feed magazine that utilized two columns of .22lr that fed into a single position at the top. The Spectre used a double column, staggered magazine that tapered to a staggered single-column, double feed at the top. While this information is interesting, it's truly not worth mentioning. I've edited the article to cover staggered box magazines. --Asams10 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the section looks good now. And thanks for clearing up the terminology, I didn't know that was incorrect. Ops101ex (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACP cartridges?

I've seen conflicting abbreviations for the ACP series of Browning cartridges. The wiki ACP page calls them "Automatic Cartridge Pistol" and several articles go on to use this name. I've always thought it was Automatic Colt Pistol. What's your take on this? Koalorka (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wiki ACP page only called it Automatic Cartridge Pistol after it was edited in mid-January. It is, indeed, Automatic Colt Pistol. It always has been. Other companies called it "Automatic Cartridge Pistol" though to avoid giving Colt free advertising. Some companies even go so far as to say, "45 Auto" instead. Ruger did much the same thing recently with the P91 pistol labeling the 40S&W the 40 Auto. That's just to illustrate the point. Look at how many different names there were for the .380 ACP. We're not representing any company here, so the correct moniker is, indeed, Automatic Colt Pistol. --Asams10 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I thought. I'll fix the ACP. Koalorka (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruger LCP

I'm new to the site, and I am eager to help. That being said, I am unsure why one of my edits was removed. Maybe you can help explain it? I had added that the LCP is double action only. However, I saw that you had removed this entry. I also saw that you removed the reference to the fact that the slide stop holding the slide back is an uncommon feature in small, inexpensive handguns. Can you let me know why you removed them? Thanks! --AuburnFan13 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are, quite literally, dozens of small, inexpensive handguns with slide locks. The LCP is not a true DAO as it does not have restrike capability. It is a pre-set hammer. --Asams10 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Regarding the slide lock, I figured that out of the thousands of small handguns made, a few dozen counted as uncommon. I'll leave out such estimates in the future. Sorry about the DAO mistake. That's what Stephen Sanetti had said, and I took it at face value. I'll be more careful in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuburnFan13 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about a few dozen PISTOLS, I'm talking about dozens of MODELS of pistols and millions of individual guns from Taurus, Bersa, etc. --Asams10 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood you had meant models, and that is what I meant as well. As I said, I will refrain from using such estimates in the future.--AuburnFan13 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimax 100

Thanks for catching the formatting issues! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a forum" revision summary

Please do not revert my comment. For one thing, you were already engaged in the discussion anyway, so it would be hypocritical for you to remove my comment. Secondly, the question I asked would derive pertinent information that could be added to the article. Malamockq (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back atcha. Interesting you tell me not to revert your comments and yet you freely revert mine. --Asams10 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rifle Prototype

I see that you disagree with my recently added information. I would respectfully disagree. I am not a rifle expert. I can see that you are. However, I think it is important for people to know where the Lee-Enfield Rifle came from in its history section. The article metions how the Lee-Enfield's design was influenced by the development of the earlier Lee-Metford. However, what influenced the development of the Lee-Metford and the Lee-Enfield? I suggest to you that it is the Lee Rifle Prototype made in Wallaceburg. Had it not been for this rifle and the Lee Brother's improvements to the box magazine in 1878 there would not have been a "Lee-Enfield Rifle". I believe that this information fits in with the Lee-Enfield article. However, if does not fit here what history section of what rifle would it fit into to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallaceburghistory (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. You are incorrect. The history of the Lee Enfield is separate and distinct from the Remington Lee and the Lee Meterford. One does not put a paragraph and pictures of the Colt M1911 on the Glock article, though one significantly influenced the other. You obviously disagree, so please start a discussion on the Lee Enfield page. --Asams10 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you still disagree. I respect that you are "sticking to your guns". Nevertheless, I found the way you edited the page to be rather offensive. "Please not again". It was as if I was doing you a grand dis-service by adding more background information on the rifle. Your statement made it seem like you were a parent scolding a child for doing something wrong. In the future I would ask politely that you limit similar comments. I feel that my degree in history from a respected Canadian University has earned me that respect. Particularly when I make an edit regarding historical events. Your talk page shows that you have a history of offending people? Why do you feel the need to be cruel and condescending? You appear to have quite a bit of knowledge regarding rifles. Why not use that knowledge for good rather then evil?

That aside I will agree and disagree with you on a couple of points. The rifles do have a distinct history of their own. That history, however, is connected. What service have you done to the page by substracting that information? All you have done is lead readers to potentially ask: Where did the Lee-Enfield Rifle come from? What other earlier influencers are their for the rifle? Where did James Paris Lee get his idea for the rifle's design? Did Lee create an earlier similar rifle? Did he create a rifle previous to the Lee-Enfield that was bolt-action, box magazine fed? Why not answer these questions on the site? Or more importantly what authority do you have to keep people from finding these answers on the Lee-Enfield page? When you suggested the rifle in the picture was a "Colt M1911" it made me question your expertise. The rifle in the picture is the Lee-Rifle prototype. --Wallaceburghistory (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the crap. I'm not saying not to add information, but you're misrepresenting what you are actually adding and you're picking a fight with me over it. Start the Lee rifle article. Start the Remington Lee article. Start the Winchester Lee article. If you've got something to add, add it in the proper place. Who the FUCK said the rifle in question was an M1911? Reread what I said. You think you have something to add, but it's really hard to take you serious when you can't recognize a clear analogy. Look it up if you don't understand what that word is. --Asams10 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudeness

Do not, under any circumstances, yell on the talk pages. If you continue in this behavior, you will be reported to an admin. Malamockq (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY? I WASN'T AWARE YOU WERE THE WIKI POLICE! --Asams10 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not type in all caps on my talk page. It is considered vandalism. This is your last warning to stop. Malamockq (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? By whom? By you or by Wikipedia. You expect me to follow YOUR rules, however you didn't follow repeated warnings about not using talk pages as your own personal forums. --Asams10 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many accusations of vandalism around. Talking in all caps isn't vandalism; its just impolite. Nor was this [2] a valid edit comment, which is why I reverted it. I'm all for keeping rambling off talk pages, though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule request

Re.: [3]. WP:DICK. Please also refrain from repeatedly adding obviously unwanted comments to another users page. If he removed them once, he has seen them. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the same comment. --Asams10 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't friendly or productive either. I would have been happy with this edit, but the followup was entirely unproductive, not to mention toothless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop posting on his page, however he'd been repeatedly warned. Per WP:Forum, I was warning him one last time before reporting him. Please read the history of the XM8 talk page and see what we were up against. I appreciate that you think you're defusing the situation, however I disagree that I'm an actor in this, just the reactor. --Asams10 (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated encyclopedia

Just out of interest why dont you like illustrated encyclopedias? MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your premise is flawed. You assume that I don't like illustrated encyclopedias. I didn't say I didn't like them. As references, however, they are unreliable. They lack peer review and fact checking. --Asams10 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK noted - thank you MilborneOne (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]