User talk:LWF

The AR-7 in popular culture

Hello LWF. I'm glad you're a shooter. (I was unsure of which page to post this)

According to 'pop culture' to quote Acceptable pop culture information should be highly notable, for example: the Walther PPK's use by James Bond. The pop cultural item that the firearm appeared in must represent the firearm realistically, and if named, should use the real name or a highly common nickname

I think this qualifies. Sadly not every Wikipedia reader is a firearms buff, but the reason for the pop culture is a reference to something they have seen in a film that they can find out about the real weapon; it's history, actual use, and limitations. (I used to own a Charter Arms one and from my iron sights experience with the weapon, 007 must have hit the SPECTRE crewman in the shoulder by aiming at his forehead)

Unlike something like a Luger, Winchester 73 on an M-1, there's not that many film appearances of the weapon. The Wikipedia links also refer to other items such as the novel, infrared scopes, (about as realistic as the rebreather in Thunderball) and other items.

I do hope this stays as the accompanying photo is rather attractive and shows a different perspective of the weaponFoofbun (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the acid test of notability is whether or not people will associate the firearm with its usage in the movie. The usual example is the Walther PPK, which when mentioned invariably triggers the response "James Bond's gun". I don't think the same applies for the AR-7.

Also, I should mention that even if the pop culture section were to be included in the article, the picture could not stay with it. This is not due to my personal feelings, but because of copyright laws. If you look at the images page, you will notice that it is a copyrighted image with a fair-use rationale. The fair-use rationale only allows it to be used in List of James Bond allies in From Russia with Love to depict Kerim Bey. In some circumstances a new fair-use rationale can be added to allow for an image's use in another article, but as there is already a picture of the AR-7 in its article, the rationale would almost certainly be rejected.

Finally, usually when I post a comment on a user's talk page I prefer to discuss it there, but since you posted a comment here I am fine as long as the bulk of the discussion happens here, or on talk:AR-7. Also, I doubt you intended this, but you posted your comment on both my user page and my user talk page, while it only should have gone on my talk page. Generally the user page is for one's own personal use to tell people about yourself. It wasn't something I mind greatly, but it is something you should be aware of.

Last but not least, you keep referring to the pop culture section disappearing without comment, but in my edit summaries I had made the comment "rv per WP:GUNS#Pop culture", so in fact a reason for the removal was being given.--LWF (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

MORE on the AR-7

Hi LWF,

Thank you for your comments...I just finished writing a reply and my computer went wonky and they vanished.

I am very new to editing Wikipedia and I thank you for your courtesy and patience in explaining some things to me so I shall not make the same errors again. I am one of these people who only learn things by doing things and crashing my head into the wall.

I apologise for using your User page instead of the Talk Page, I was unsure of the difference and appreciate your courtesy. I shall not do that again.

I did not originally notice the "rv per WP:GUNS#Pop culture"; I probably did not know where to look for it.

I take on board your comments on the deletion of the image. I was under the impression (incorrectly) that once an image had been approved for use by Wikipedia it belonged to them and could be used to illustrate another article from a different aspect that would save the trouble of another image being submitted and approved. The reasons I submitted the photo was not only to add reader interest to the article but to show an image of an AR-7 with added attachments, namely the 'infrared' scope and suppressor. They probably were the first attachments ever used on the piece (yes I know I don't have a reference for that)

I strongly feel the article is necessary. Firstly as the majority of readers are probably not familiar with firearms, their first viewing of the weapon would be in a film, especially ones of such long standing popularity that are constantly rerun like the early Bond films.

Many things, whether firearms, or military organisations (Legion Etranger, American Marines, RCMP), foodstuffs (Spam) have a social history as strong as their actual one, though the two may not fit together in accuracy.

Secondly, how has a small caliber weapon gone from being viewed as something an outdoorsman can put place inside its own stock then put in a backpack in case he or she wants some bunny chow to a weapon percieved as a state of the art assassination weapon? Most people with firearms expertise, however limited, may question the use of a .22 as opposed to something more suitable, such as a folding stock .45 cal DeLisle carbine for a mission of retroactive family planning. That the weapon can be mentioned in a Paladin Press book and have such deliberate work put on the weapon (such as the article's theory that the spring was reconfigured to be unable to use subsonic ammunition, and the different threading of the AR-7 Explorer) means that the AR-7 does have the perception that I mentioned. I strongly feel it is from the Bond films. (I am also trying to gather proof that at least two other superspy movies had enemy henchmen using AR-7 recievers with sexy long barrels and stocks)

I have not been able to find detailed information of WHY the AR-7 was chosen for 'From Russia With Love' (as it doesn't appear in the novel) though no doubt once Eon had one in their armoury they reused it for 'Goldfinger'. This is unlike the detailed correspondence of why Ian Fleming chose a Walther PPK (when the real Geoffrey Boothroyd mentioned a list of suitable pistols, Fleming like the SOUND of it and gave the wrong holster as he liked the sound of that as well) or why the film poster Bond uses a Walther LP 53 air pistol (the prop PPK didn't arrive at the photo shoot, you can't photograph James Bond without a pistol as otherwise he looks like a surly waiter, the photographer was an air pistol shooter and had his piece in his car boot, and though the photographer suggested airbrushing out the long barrel as was done in US posters of the film, the original British poster artist loved the sexy phallic image of a long weapon and a leer)

To conclude, I feel that the pop culture reference is necessary for an understanding of the weapon from both the layman (who would be introduced to the acutal history and capability of the weapon) and the shooter (who wonders how the weapon received a reputation to be mentioned in a Paladin Press book or featured as the choice of a rancher revenging himself on the US Army)

I thank your for your help and advice and hope this comes out allright. I apologise for rattling on but I have a strong feeling on this (trivia makes the world go 'round)Foofbun (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you rattling on. Frankly, it is rather refreshing, as the average person adding pop culture sections will justify it by screaming "it's notable" without citing a reason. And I don't mind that you've done things like accidentally posting the image, or posting on my user page, there's always a learning curve tho these things; now if I had reason to believe that you should or do know better, then I would be annoyed, but as we know, that isn't the case.

On the subject of the AR-7 and pop culture, I can see the point you are making, but we will need citations corroborating this. Also, if you haven't already found it, the edit summary comments are located under the tab at the top of each page labeled "history".

On the subject of the reasons for a variety of Fleming's actions, I had heard different reasons for the choices made by Fleming. I had heard that Boothroyd suggested a .38 Special revolver for Bond's concealed work, and a .357 Magnum for heavier duty stuff, but Fleming believed that a semi-automatic pistol would be a better choice for Bond. I had also heard that Boothroyd specified the particular holster, and Fleming didn't realize that he had recommended it for the revolvers, and that it wouldn't work with a semi-auto. After all, Fleming wasn't totally ignorant of firearms, as he had served in the Office of Strategic Services during WWII, even if all the raids he planned for the purpose of grabbing Enigma machines were total failures.--LWF (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you LWF. I didn't know about the 'history' tab.

I'm afraid I couldn't post any footnotes for the statements on the film as they are rather obvious. Though as stated, I would put a reference if I could find one of WHY the AR-7 was chosen, like many things in the film, one of the producers or art directors no doubt saw it and wrote it into the script.

Yes, you heard right on Fleming; what I admire about him is that he actually took the trouble to seek the advice of an actual expert (I've just finished a brief article on the real Mr. Boothroyd that I hope someone will expand) and later reproduced the correspondence. Like a lot of other people in the military he probably only knew what he was trained on. (if a wartime RNR commissioned officer posted in London would ever have had weapons training).

It's rather sad that in the old days an author would invent a fiction private eye, superspy, or supercommando, now people come up with 'true accounts' that their imagination actually had a basis in reality. You can discover after a few paragraphs the total lack of knowledge of the author and I'm glad there isn't a weapons editor correcting them.

I thank you for your kind words and encouragement. Since discovering the internet I have agreed with a friend who has called it the encylopedia of the instantaneous; so many deserving individuals and facts are unknown as they happened before the Internet and those after (this is you Ms. Spears and your ilk) have too much detail. I found the article on the AR-7 (as with many other weapons articles in Wikipedia) very well written Foofbun (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, some of the references will have to be trimmed from the pop culture section, just for example, the one about Bond's Aston-Martin hasn't had the same impact as the others. Also, since this it is the entry on the AR-7, and not James Bond, we should trim some of the plot details from the first James Bond portion, as acceptable pop culture is generally prose written on how the appearance affected the firearm, see Webley revolver#Cultural influence for a good example of a properly written pop culture kind of section. The part on Goldfinger can probably go as the AR-7 was only seen very briefly, and it is unlikely it had much of an effect on the AR-7. In my opinion the section would be best if rewritten to read more like this,

As opposed to the original hunting and survival weapon envisioned by its creators, the .22 calibre AR-7 was used as an assassination weapon in several films, such as the James Bond movie From Russia with Love where it is used to assassinate a Soviet agent. This and other films have even led to it being recommended as an assassination weapon in the controversial book, Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors.

--LWF (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and accept it on the Aston Martin LWF (though it does fill out the paragraph). I would still put the Goldfinger reference in as the weapon was reused, and by a female as well. As I stated about my own experience with the weapon, the film features Tilly Masterson's shot at Mr Goldfinger so far off the mark that it nearly hits Bond. I also would include the brief reference to Rage (I've fond memories of a 'National Lampoon' mock contest seeking readers votes to determine 'Who is Angrier? George C. Scott vs Kirk Douglas' with quotes from their films) The point is that the weapon has gone from a survival weapon, to a precision assassination weapon (with a too highly effective infrared scope and suppressor you can fit in your pocket) to a weapon of choice to a rancher (would a standard lever action rifle appear too cowboy/redneck to Hollywood?) revenging himself on the US Army. There is also Chuckles Bronson in a film I'm not sure of the name of ('Violent City'? my brain cells are voting with their feet) using one to shoot the tyre of someone in his way and he fits the weapon into a picnic basket that I did not mention.

To summarise, please leave in the 'Goldfinger' reference as it is very well known and the 'Rage' reference as it is also known and ridiculous. Thank youFoofbun (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, I deleted the portion where it talks about the AR-7 not being in the novel, since that has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of effect had on the AR-7 by the appearances. I also condensed the two Bond appearances into one paragraph. Although the section could still be improved, because sections like that are supposed to be prose about the effects on the firearm from the appearance, not a list of appearances.--LWF (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I included the mention of the attachments added to the weapon that is clearly visible in the film and on stills. I didn't want to get into a checklist of every film that featured the weapon (though there are very few; it wouldn't take much space, much like the Reising Gun (that Jack Hawkins calls the REISLING in 'The Planters Wife'/'Outpost in Malaya') I'm unsure what you mean about 'prose about the effects on the firearm from the appearance'. I've mentioned the uses briefly. I mentioned the novel so the reader can see it was purely in the film and the 'walking stick' reference may set off a new article as there have been walking stick weapons since the 19th century.Foofbun (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Clip vs. Magazine

LWF, I was wondering if you could chime in on the debate regarding the definition of a clip vs. a Magazine. I am looking for other firearms folks. There's an editor taking the position that Clips are Magazines and citing the Dictionary. Thanks for your help. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd noticed the debate. I've got the Oxford Dictionary of Current English right in front of me, and its definition certainly reflects proper firearms terminology. I'll be right over.--LWF (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

K, thanks. I noticed that I got caught up in buying a car and didn't proofread my entry here. Forgot to point you to the talk page. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reversions to my user page, I had the vandal blocked. Thanks again.--Finalnight (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Always glad to be of service.--LWF (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Immediate undoing of an edit objection

I'd just like to object to your removal of the trivia section from the M1911 page, done exactly one minute after I had posted that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bane II (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:GUNS#Pop culture, and WP:MILMOS#POP. They both quite clearly state that information like that you posted is not notable in the firearm's article. For it to be notable, it has to be shown to have had an effect on the firearm, for example, how the Walther PPK was affected by its use by James Bond.--LWF (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

M1

was the M1 you fired a Garand or a Carbine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe la pepper (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a Garand. Very nice firearm: excellent balance of weight, neither front nor rear heavy; and it points very naturally.--LWF (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Membership request

Can you register me for Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms as hunting firearms "corespondent" or whatever the title may be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonisRugitur (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to have me add you to the list of members. You can do that yourself, as no permission is necessary to join the project. Just be sure to add your name in alphabetical order.--LWF (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Resolution

Hello LWF, for the past several days, Nukes4Tots and I have been having a back and forth over a merged article and no resolution can be agreed upon. Since it seems we've reached a loggerhead, I was hoping some sort of authoritative voice can finally put this discussion to rest. Last week I had begun writing an article on the QBZ-56C (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=QBZ-56C&oldid=235844830), a modified carbine variant of the Type 56 assault rifle after reading the Wikiproject Firearms section on variants, that stated if there had been a significant difference in both the overall design and design history a carbine (such as the M4) could merit a seperate article. The article was quickly merged with the Type 56 article by Nukes4Tots. Soon both Nukes4Tots and I discussed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Type_56_assault_rifle) whether the merger was called for, we both aired our concerns but apart from Mike Searson 'leaning toward' a seperate article, no real resolution has been agreed upon, and this matter has been left hanging for several days. So I was hoping for your take on the matter. Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me some time to look into the discussion more thoroughly. I had noticed your discussion, but had only given it a cursory glance, as I have been quite a bit busier lately than usual.--LWF (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you LWF, no need to rush though, its just one of those nagging problems that been on the back of my mind for the past couple of days, once again, thanks for your help. Semi-Lobster (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been about two months LWF, just checking if you've gotten around to a resolution yet, thanks for your time, cheers! Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I've been meaning to followup on this. Looking at it, I would say that the QBZ-96C does not warrant its own separate article, but that the information on it in the QBZ-95 article does bear expanding. Sorry about the wait time, though, there's been a fair bit of stuff I've been meaning to do for a while, but life has been interfering.--LWF (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Err you mean the QBZ-56C? Right? lol, well anyway I shall greatly expand the article for the Type 56 when I have the tim so thanks for the help! 64.230.5.186 (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake. Yes, I did mean QBZ-56C, I suspect that slipped in because I remembered the debate, but the designations got a little bit mixed up in my head.--LWF (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

copyright violation accusation

It appears that somebody had attacked the Walker Colt Article in ref: a copyright violation. This accusation is spurious as the article is well sourced and the alleged violation is a publishers blurb from my own book, Percussion Pistols and Revolvers, History, Performance and Practical Use. The Walker Article is rather good and should not be destroyed because of whatever (remove inflamatory word mc) motivates the complainant.--Mcumpston (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I note that the subject who positied a copywrite violation on the walker article also reversed images I had place under the Tannerite Article and the one title Boar. I believe the inclusion of a picture of a hunter with a feral hog brough me to his attention and inflamed him in some manner causing him to research my articles and begin deleting material. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing_2/Proposed_decision--Mcumpston (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)--Mcumpston (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for getting the vandalism on my userpage and user talk page! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Always glad to help. Vandals are kinda amusing, but annoying.--LWF (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And mine. Appreciate it. --John (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help.--LWF (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Voere VEC-91

Hi, I edited the Voere last. Thanks for fixing it up the technical problems of the page, haven't really done anything on wiki before except for editing text.

However; The information provided on the Voere VEC-91 is misleading and incorrect. The weapon is NOT a bolt-action type weapon, it is an electronically fired weapon. Hence; its action is not bolt-action, being a shooter yourself I'm sure you're familiar to the mechanics involved with creating and using a specifically BOLT-ACTION weapon and that one that has an action that has NO MOVING PARTS and is fired by TWO FIFTEEN VOLT BATTERIES would certainly not be a BOLT-ACTION RIFLE. I do not mean to sound rude, I just find it frustrating to see such misleading information prevented in an encyclopedia.

Because of my incapability with the technicalities of wikipedia editing, I ask you, could you please change the information on the Voere VEC-91 page so that the type and action reads the proper information?

Cheers, Mud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.135.38 (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Voere VEC-91 is in fact a bolt-action rifle. When someone refers to a firearm action, they are referring to the method by which a new cartridge is loaded into the chamber, not the method that is used to ignite the cartridge; the exception to this being flintlocks, wheellocks and caplocks and the like. If action referred to the method of igniting the cartridge, then almost every firearm would be a "firing-pin action". Instead, we have firearms whose actions' are for instance, gas-operated. The gas that operates it doesn't actually ignite the cartridge, it works the operating mechanism, loading a round into the chamber.--LWF (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AK-47

I think you may be already, but if not, can you fix up the AK-47 page, my undo's just seem to be getting in the way. thanks. 76.64.140.24 (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What do I do after I add an image to a page that has a request for an image

Hi LWF, what do I do after adding an image to a page that has a request for an image on the WikiProject Firearms todo list? Do I strike it out or remove the entry? I just added an image to Ruger SR9.

I plan on collecting as many CC licensed images as possible that are requested on the todo list by mobilizing the readers of my gun blog. Steve9x19 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove it from the list. The strike out system really is intended for the other parts which involve more opinion and improvement. Just a word of caution, whoever takes the picture has to release it under the CC license, as they are the ones that hold the copyright.--LWF (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LWF. I do understand the need to ensure that the photographer releases it under the CC license Steve9x19 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome to the project!

Hi LWF, thanks for your welcome. Hopefully I'll contribute in some way to the project. I've practiced shooting long time ago, and I like mainly military firearms; but I don't consider myself an expert in the topic(more an "enthusiast"). Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. One great way to contribute is to find good reference materials. That's where I get most of my info as do many of us, especially as most people will never get a chance to handle and examine some of the odder specimens out there.--LWF (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Culbann C.P.C

Hi, as the creator of this page, treasurer of the club and founding member never mind being the owners son and been in the club what seems all my life. How can i make this wiki page more notable about the club and its history, any guidance will be helpful and also some sort of rating and discussion on possible improvements to the page would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeman com (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All I can recommend is that you read WP:NOTABILITY, and see what it say makes a subject notable, and from there add material to the article showing the notability of the subject. Although I should mention that generally Wikipedia discourages writing an article about something when you're in a position like yours. From WP:Your First Article: "Do not create pages about yourself, your company, your band or your friends, pages that advertise, personal essays or other articles you would not find in an encyclopedia.".--LWF (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert!

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page. I owe you one! Nburden ^(T) 06:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Never a problem.--LWF (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Logo of Firearms WikiProject

Can you give me the logo of the Firearms Wikiproject since I'm a member of it. Thanks. AR-15(6.8 SPC) (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't really have a logo, but our banners and userboxes can be found at WP:GUNS#Project userbox.--LWF (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI of discussion regarding structure of WikiProject Firearms articles

This discussion may be of interest. -- Yaf (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed all of the discussion going on. I would comment, but events of the past few months, especially some things that I've seen on Wikipedia have gotten me to the point of not caring enough to do anything. That and I've been busier, but I currently have more free time, but things have just gotten me not caring enough. Maybe I'll bring up enough effort to start discussing things, but right now I don't care enough to do it. I used to care and I could word things well and propose acceptable compromises or persuade people as to why it would be better one way, but I have other things to do, and I don't have enough interest in Wikipedia to do it. I still enjoy firearms and discussing them, but for the next while I probably won't do much other than revert vandalism. Who knows, maybe I could be persuaded to bring back my old touch for discussing things. If you want to just talk guns though, feel free to e-mail me, I think you already have my address from the times we've talked before.--LWF (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, letting that out has kind of left me feeling a little bit better about things again, maybe I can get myself back into it. And thanks for that clarification of some guys addition to the guidelines, much better than simply having a link.--LWF (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Catharsis is good :-) I can clearly relate to what you are feeling, and have observed the problems, too. Reloading and going to the range for a few weeks is what works best for me :-) (Yes, I have your e-mail adr :-) Yaf (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have some of the means of relaxing that you have. I've never really publicized this widely, but until recently I have not owned any firearms. It wasn't for a lack of desire, it was due to circumstances beyond my control. And I now have an AR-15 stripped lower receiver, but I'm waiting for the rest of the parts to arrive, which could talk a long while. I suppose since I'm already revealing things I've never made known before, I might as well reveal why I didn't have any firearms: until the last year or so I was underage. And I suppose it's worth mentioning that I will be taking a long wikibreak/leave of absence late in September, I'm going to Brazil for two years as a missionary, so I won't be on the web during that time.--LWF (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Age is never an issue. Maturity is what counts. I have continuously owned guns since I was 12 :-) (The rules were different back then!) I first bought handgun ammo when I was 13 at the local hardware store. Black powder firearms were also another popular item in the early 70's, even being stored in college dorm rooms on campus, no less, not legally being defined as firearms. You will greatly enjoy your time as a missionary. If you haven't already obtained one, a ham radio license would be of great benefit. (I relayed missionary phone patch traffic and handled health & welfare messages with Ecuador and Nicaragua for about 3 years once upon a time.) WP will still be around when you return. Yaf (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah how times change. Actually a few years ago I was going to take advantage of the different legal definition of black powder firearms and buy a kit for one, but somehow never got around to it. It didn't help that I didn't have a job, and as such my income was limited. And it's actually a proselytizing mission, although service projects are still common on such missions. You can get a pretty decent description at Mission (LDS Church) and Missionary (LDS Church).--LWF (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm sure you already knew it, the sometimes-described patron saint of designing firearms, some say even of firearms, John Moses Browning, once did a mission stint in Georgia :-) Your plans seem perfectly consistent to me!  :-) -- Yaf (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, knew about Browning. It's kind of funny how many people know about him though, and have no idea about his religion. I've even known people within the LDS Church who knew about him but didn't know he was a member. Although I have to say, it would be very interesting to see what his take would be on the firearms industry of today, and the advances, changes, and innovations and all that.

And thanks for the encouraging comments. They're appreciated.--LWF (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, I've been trying to e-mail you, have you changed your address since we last talked?--LWF (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No change in e-mail. Was just out of town for the weekend (it was a gun show weekend :-). Have replied to e-mail. Yaf (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

LWF, George has suggested that your original comment was about me specifically. As I have not been interacting with Wikiproject Firearms or its members for a period of months, I am afraid this may have been a mistake - but I would like your input. I sincerely apologize if any of my behavior has driven you to the point of wanting to leave Wikipedia. If you have any concerns about my behavior please feel free to discuss them with me - I will not respond with hostility as long as I am not told that my opinions are invalidated by not being a member of Wikiproject Firearms. Some guy (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You and others. I won't start naming names for a variety of reasons, but yes, this incident has been among those that has gotten me caring less and less about Wikipedia. Give me a day or so to compose my thoughts.--LWF (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only one. This... recent unpleasantness has severely dented my enthusiasm for Wikipedia and I've been taking some time to seriously consider what form, if any, my future involvement here is likely to be. In the interests of doing this I'm trying to keep Wiki-related communications on Talk Pages etc for the time being and I've scaled back my editing efforts to "basic maintenance" for now as well. I'm truly sorry if that throws a spanner into the works for you; please, accept my apologies for the inconvenience. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really surprised. Send me an e-mail, I've got an interesting proposal for you.--LWF (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

SKS stock

Hello LWF, I would like to know where you got the SKS M4 stock in this link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/SKS_modified.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.97.99 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) EMAIL: upser9110 at gmail dot com

It wasn't mine so I don't know exactly where it was purchased, but the stock was made by Tapco, who makes many variations on that stock. Look at Tapco.com for one that fits your SKS.--LWF (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy ANI

I have started an ANI discussion on Some guy: WP:ANI#Some guy I believe you've made oblique comments critical of his participation, though I may have misinterpreted what you meant. You may want to comment there. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes this incident is one of the incidents I was referring to in the post you mentioned at ANI. If I can bring myself to care enough I'll participate at ANI, but as I've mentioned, I really have gotten to the point of not caring about Wikipedia.--LWF (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

HK416 assault rifle

Is the HK416 going to be the new standard weapon for the U.S. Army? Also, is the HK416 also a carbine?--Rollersox (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Army has not made any plans that I know of to replace the M16 and M4 with the HK416. And yes, it can be configured as a carbine with the carbine length barrels H&K has made for it.--LWF (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the Army have any current plans to make the FN SCAR-L and SCAR-H standard?--Rollersox (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. You can check out this stuff by reading the articles you're asking about though. I don't have any inside sources for my information, I have to search for the stuff like everyone without inside information.--LWF (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I came up with some sources that said the FN SCAR-L and -H were going to replace the U.S. Army some time a few years later. It might be true, but I'm not very sure.--Rollersox (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Gun Chat

Is there like a private website just for talking about guns? I was watching a movie called Safari and it showed the main protagonist typing in questions to another guy on the international chat. It was called "Gun International Chat" or something like that. If there is, can you give me a browser that leads to it?--Rollersox (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots. A google search will turn up many.--LWF (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for bothering you so much.--Rollersox (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

AK-86

I heard some topics about an "AK-86." Have you any idea if there is an AK-86 or not?--Rollersox (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Militaryguns.com says there are. Weird.--Rollersox (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm finding seems to indicate that you are talking about the Norinco Type 86S, a bullpup AK type rifle manufactured in China.--LWF (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. You're right. I'm sorry.--Rollersox (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please

Hello LWF ! Please keep an eye on this user. I have noted several international edits [1] - [2] which are supposed to be vandalism. Regards from de:Portal:Waffen --Gruß Tom (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an important article in the firearms project

Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#2009_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard. This discussion needs more input. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:X-1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:X-1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 10:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello LWF. Thanks for what you've done here at WikiProject Firearms! I'm not sure I'm right in posting this here but I've got an IP user (68.62.164.110) disregarding my notes on the 7.62 Jonson page and refusing to understand his additions to the description of this cartridge are bogus. I don't want to get in a undo war over this but I can prove conclusively that this user's additions to this page are not relevant to this rifle cartridge...perhaps he's mistaken it for something else. In any case, your advice would be welcome.100%BulletProof TALK 01:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)