Talk:Ruger Mini-14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Is the A-Team TV show of greater importance than the 2011 Norway attacks?[edit]

How come we have a section devoted to this firearms use on a fictional TV show but no mention of a very famous use in real life? Felsic2 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If there's no objection I'll restore the weapon's use in some famous mass shootings.[1] Felsic2 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the recent edits to the page I would guess that there are objections and you shouldn't restore the material without discussion. Springee (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as this is a discussion page, this is my effort at a discussion. Felsic2 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The two items aren't connected. If the A-Team mention doesn't meet WP:POPCULT and relevant guidelines, then propose removing it on that basis alone. Trying to piggyback your preferred info onto its inclusion isn't really a good argument. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you support the inclusion of the A-Team? Do you object to inclusion of real life notable events? Felsic2 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't support the activities of sock puppets, per WP policies, which is why I reverted the diff you linked to above. You haven't given a valid reason for re-including that info, nor have you given a valid reason for removing the A-Team info. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The "valid reason" for including the criminal use material is that it is widely reported information about the subject of the article. It is certainly more noted than the use of the weapon in an American TV show. If there's no one registering an objection I'll restore it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The last two items weren't properly sourced, so be sure to include reliable sources for all the claims made. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Got it. Felsic2 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Given the number of times this information has been removed from the article please get consensus for the addition before adding it. Springee (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Since I started this thread 12 days ago no one's posted any objection to including the Breivik material. The discussion has been open and I haven't rushed to make an edit. Felsic2 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see [2]. The exact edits that you want to make have just been reverted 10 times by 5 different editors resulting in IP user 86.153.166.89 being blocked. And, as you are fully aware of this, even commenting on said users talk page,[3] don't pretend that there are no objections and restore the edits. --RAF910 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anyone, from either side, discussing those edits. An unproductive edit war shouldn't affect the content of the article. The edits seem to have been reverted because they were made by a banned sock, not because of the material itself. Felsic2 (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Well then lets make it official...I object to and oppose the addition of a "criminal use" or body count or what ever you want to call it section, to the Mini-14 page.--RAF910 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. You need to provide reason, preferably based on actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please see WP:GUNCRIME, my essay discussing some commonly made arguments. Felsic2 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
At the top of the page there is a discussion that is related to the material in question. I see this in the same light as the Chevy Caprice material you added [[4]]. Yes, the crime is clearly significant but that doesn't mean the gun in question was impacted by it's use in the crime. Springee (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Springee: The discussion at #Anders Behring Breivik above seems to overwhelming favor inclusion, five to one. Cars anf guns are different. The more comparable article would be SIG MCX. Felsic2 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It isn't a vote, but the addition having been challenged, you need a consensus before you can reintroduce the content. At this point, I join RAF910 in opposing it, and neither they nor I need to convince you of or even share with you our reasons for doing so. The onus is on you to achieve consensus, not on us to tell you why you don't have it. See WP:CONSENSUS. General Ization Talk 01:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to WP:CONSENSUS. Here's some of what it says:
  • Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines....A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.
If you don't raise any "proper concerns" then there's no way of taking them into account.
  • In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
How much weight should we give to an argument based on undisclosed arguments? Based on that policy, the answer appears to be "no weight whatsoever".
  • The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately
What would be an acceptable compromise? Felsic2 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There can be No Compromise as there is NO Encyclopedic value to adding a gratuitous body count to this page or any other page on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should read WP:Advocate, WP:Not listening & WP:Winning.--RAF910 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If your standard is "encyclopedic value" then can you please provide an objective definition? What is "encyclopedic value"? Felsic2 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't have to answer any of your questions. It is enough that I oppose your position. Perhaps you should read WP:Gaming the system as well. --RAF910 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS: The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. If you want your objection to carry any weight it must have reasoned arguments. Felsic2 (talk)

This discussion is going nowhere. Enough is enough...If you think that you have consensus, then make the edits and live with the consequences.--RAF910 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What I haven't seen is anyone provide a reasoned argument against inclusion. I don't know what "consequences" there would be for making an edit. What are you talking about? Felsic2 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Conversely, I haven't yet seen you make a reasoned argument for inclusion of the information that has been challenged (which is what you are expected to do in order to build consensus for a change, not just gripe that no one's given you a good reason to not include it). As a start, you could identify other articles concerning assault weapons that include a digest of criminal incidents in which that particular weapon was used. So far, I haven't found one. Since other editors will be expected to help keep such a list up to date, they have a right to understand why you think it will be valuable that they do so. General Ization Talk 17:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
As for your argument that "it is widely reported information about the subject of the article", I'd hazard a guess that very few of the reports you were referring to were focused on the model of weapon used in the incidents. If you can find an article that suggests that the Mini 14 is so disproportionately used in such incidents that it is by itself a notable factor in the incidents, and why, then I might agree. Otherwise this information will be primarily of technical interest to arms dealers and aficionados (perhaps along with terrorists who want to emulate Breivik), not to the average reader of the encyclopedia. The average reader will likely find such "scorekeeping" offensive in light of the loss of life in the incidents you propose to list. (I know I do.) General Ization Talk 18:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, though I'll also note that no one has offered any support for the A-Team mention. Other articles don't really matter, per WP:OSE, right? Even so, there are numerous articles about weapons, explosives, posions, etc, that mention notable assoicated deaths. Here are a few: Polonium, Black Talon, Ice axe, Derringer, Gelignite, Colt Cobra, British Bull Dog revolver, M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless, Bolo knife, FIM-92 Stinger, Cyanide poisoning, MP_40#Copies_and_post-war_usage, Pressure cooking, Improvised firearm, ANFO (Note these edits and summaries: [5][6][7]), and many more. If those article can mention deadly uses, why not this one?
One of the main content policies, and the only one that discusses what should be in an article, is WP:NPOV. One part, WP:WEIGHT, says that articles should reflect issues discussed in reliable sources, proportionate to their prominence. In other words, if a matter has been discussed in many sources then it shouldn't be excluded.
Breivik's use of this firearm is far more noteworthy than its use in Bermuda or Rhodesia. If we want to remain neutral, we should report each user with the weight given by sources using a consistent, objective standard.
Information on the historical significance of this firearm is of interest to general readers. The material of interest to enthusiasts and professionals, which are not the intended audience, probably includes minute details like weight, length, obscure variants, and so forth.
We include information whether it's pleasant or unpleasant. Wikipedia isn't censored. We have long articles on Breivik and his crime. That means Wikipedia is already "scorekeeping" whether we like it or not. Major crimes are of intense interest to the public and also to scholars. In excluding this material, the article is excluding the views of priminent mainstream sources. Felsic2 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If no one has a policy-based objection I'll go ahead and post a mention of the Breivik attack. Felsic2 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS and while you are reading please review WP:LISTEN. Springee (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Criminal Use revert?[edit]

RAF910 please, what is your reason for reverting my edits ? My edits seem in accord with the guidelines and other articles. Would you have better wording?

After I scanned the discussion in this talk page, I did not make the same edits as the IP you mentioned. No "body counts", no repeat of the incident descriptions, which I don't think need to be repeated in this article, used neutral wording, not imflammatory, (to me) added criteria for 2 incidents, following the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use guidelines, as I understand them, and applied my edits in the similar text pattern, I believe, as I read in these articles; Sig MCX, Bushmaster_XM-15, Carcono

Sorry, I did not clarify the talk page in my edit comment. I was referring to comments in the WP:Guns project talk page, and did read the discussion in this talk page first. Now if I did, I did not mean to irritate you or anyone; and have no agenda, my interest is building an encyclopedia. I think uses, good and bad, belong in this article, like other articles and subjects, in an encyclopedia. I only listed 2 incidents instead of the original 4 incidents since only 2 seemed appropriate to me to be in this article after my research. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Project page talk page excerpts I was referring to in my edit comment:Draft Example: Notoriety: The Mini 14 was used in the: 1986 FBI Miami shootout, École Polytechnique Massacre, Byron_David_Smith_killings and Utoya mass shooting incidents."CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC) That'd be sensible. Felsic2 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I would support a bulleted list of article links for incidents (both positive and negative) with notability sufficient for separate wikipedia articles. See Also might be a more neutral list title option than Notoriety or Popular culture. Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just like the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles...Perhaps you should read WP:ONUS. The person adding the information has to convince his follow editors that the information has encyclopedic value, not the other way around. And, I object to adding a body count to this article. If you don't understand my position, then read WP:NOT LISTENING. I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time...This time I recommend that you actually read the WP pages. Especially, as those same edit were just reverted 10 times by 5 different editors, resulting in an IP user being blocked and the Mini-14 page being protected.--RAF910 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:RAF910, I did not write counts. I do not read the edits to be the same/identical. I will create a request for comments. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Add major incidents to article?[edit]

(non-admin closure) Consensus supports inclusion of the material. Arguments against included prior discussions rejecting the material, the risk of the article becoming a soapbox, lack of impacts on gun laws, and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Arguments in favor also cited WP:DUEWEIGHT, but with numerous reliable sources to back up the argument. Discounting non-policy-based reasoning, the arguments in favor of the material have more influence.- MrX 15:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Ruger Mini 14 article add this text? CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Ruger Mini 14 was used in these incidents:

I added criteria, the 2 results per: WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use. I did not think it was necessary to repeat the incident details within the 2 articles.

The article has a popular culture section, with a use on a TV series. No incidents or other use are in the article.

There are sources in the 2 incident articles, I repeated some sources and added additional sources here:

Sources

1986 FBI Miami shootout

École Polytechnique Massacre

Rathjen, Heidi; Montpetit, Charles (1999). December 6: From the Montreal Massacre to Gun Control. Toronto:. McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-6125-0.

Comment added: I tried to model my proposed edits based on what found written in these articles. Please suggest if you think the proposed wording could be better written. Thank you CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
1. Carcano#Kennedy_assassination_rifle, 2. SIG_MCX#Criminal_use, 3. Bushmaster XM-15 Notoriety, Sandy Hook and aftermath, Legality, 4.Pressure_cooking#Use in Terrorism, 5. Ammonium_nitrate#Terrorism


Survey[edit]

  • Yes Wikipedia includes important incidents about a subject.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Think mentioning the weapon belongs on the incident article, not on the weapon article. Otherwise it seems too open to becoming a WP:SOAPBOX. It also seems to not be justified by due WP:WEIGHT either, since a quick bing of the article title is not visibly showing these incidents anywhere in the first 10 pages -- mostly I'm seeing coverage is on the weapon design, or police and hunter magazine articles about it. And I don't see 'they mention Ateam' as a good argument. (Theres a whole IMDB list but ... that's not a good reason to put them in this article.) Markbassett (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    • If you review the number of times this weapon is mentioned in mainstream newspapers and magazines, I think you'd find that criminal uses are far more prominently reported than the relatively trivial information, such as coatings and dimensions, that make up the bulk of this article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • NO...CuriousMind knows full well that the inclusion of this information has been talked to death and rejected every single time. CuriousMind knows full well that every single time that this information has been added to the article it has been reverted. And, yet here we are again. So much for "I did not mean to irritate you or anyone; and have no agenda, my interest is building an encyclopedia." Especially, when it appears that CuriousMind wants to add similar information to not only a dozen different firearms articles, but also several different automotive articles as well. No agenda here, no pattern, nothing to see, move along.--RAF910 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
User:RAF910, Please assume good faith. Your response I think is not appropriate and not collaborative. My proposal is not the same edits. to recap: I added the edits, after seeing discussion on the project page. After your revert, and you stating mistakenly they are the same as a previous edits, I used the RFC as the next discussion step. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Sir, your edit history speaks for itself. No matter how you change or rearrange the words, the content remains the same. Now it appears that you want to add the same content to mudslides and fires as well. And you still claim there is no agenda here, no pattern, nothing to see, move along. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Advocacy. Especially, the Defenses section. Who knows, like a Pokémon Go player, maybe you just got caught or carried away in the moment and you don't realize that you've crossed the line.--RAF910 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Raf910 I consider your statements harassment.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes per CuriousMind01. Am surprised that anyone would object to the inclusion of an important impact made by the subject of the article. (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in random requests for comment) --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No per RAF910. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No. No major changes in firearm laws occurred due to the criminal use(s). No change in notoriety occurred. Hence, no need to include in this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That's incorrect. From École Polytechnique massacre: "The incident led to more stringent gun control laws in Canada. It also introduced changes in the tactical response of police to shootings, changes which were later credited with minimizing casualties at the Dawson College shootings."
    • Further, you're creating a standard that has no basis in Wikiedia policies and guidelines, a standard that no other material in this article could meet. Felsic2 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The "more stringent gun control laws in Canada" consisted of only requiring more paperwork. No existing guns were confiscated, nor their possession rescinded from owners. Hardly a major change. The tactical response of police to shootings is also not a change in gun laws, either. As I said, no major changes in firearm laws occurred due to the criminal use(s). Besides, police change their tactical responses regularly, as better ways of operation are found, or simply for lessening the predictability of their responses to criminal acts. Lets keep on topic, with regards to gun laws. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Where do you get the need for a "major change" to have been made in order to mention something in a Wikipedia article? That's not the standard we use for anything else in this article. This material is well-supported by numerous reliable sources. NPOV says we should include it on a WEIGHT basis. Felsic2 (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No/yes. No to the content as written and in general I would oppose such content as we don't have reliable sources about the subject of this article making the link for us and thus establishing weight for inclusion. However, in this case we have a reliable source, American Rifleman, writing about the rifle vs about the FBI shooting event that mentions the event and making the connection. Thus a RS article about the subject of this article felt it was worth mentioning. I'm not saying how the FBI shooting should be included but I feel there is sufficient weight in that case. I have not seen weight for the others. Springee (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No, per User:RAF910. Do we include information about the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt on the Nissan Pathfinder article? If the Ruger had a unique quality or attribute that contributed to the events in question then it might be grounds for inclusion. But, as the Times Square incident most likely would have been carried out with a different vehicle if the Pathfinder didn't exist, so would these incidents if the Ruger didn't exist so we do run the risk of soapboxing and undue weight. --Guiletheme (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
If the Nissan Pathfinder has at the nexus of a cultural and political debate on restricting access to that model of car like the Ruger Mini-14 was in Canada post-École Polytechnique, then yes it would be included. Gun control debates are real societal issues that get plenty of coverage from reliable sources, and that coverage of the political debate, which sometimes focuses on specific models, does convey encyclopedic significance and are not just mere trivia. For example, as comparison the Bushmaster XM-15 article mentions the Beltway and Sandy Hook attacks. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, at least in the case of École Polytechnique, which had a profound influence on the debate around Canadian gun laws and acquired notoriety like the Bushmaster XM-15 after the Beltway sniper attacks and Sandy Hook, both of which are mentioned in that article. This notoriety provides encyclopedic relevance and is part of the history of the weapon. This article by Macleans directly compares the two guns and details the politcal and legislative debate around the Ruger Mini-14 [8]. Many other articles directly reference the gun in the context of the attack and debates on gun control nearly 30 years later [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This book on Canadian spree killings also references the Ruger Mini-14 five times in the three pages of coverage it devotes to the incident [14], [15]. These sources show that the argument that "there was no change in notoriety" to be false.
As for claims that no changes in Firearm Laws occurred, I would invite editors to read the second half of this article, which details how the Ecole Polytechnique massacre changed Canadian gun laws. [16]. The fallout of the legislation reached the Supreme Court last year, 26 years after the massacre. [17] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. According to WP:NPOV, all significant viewpoints should be included. Also, the weight they're given in an article should be proportional to the number and prominence of the published sources. Information about the use of this weapon in widely reported crimes is much more significant material than the various special editions, with their resepctive weights and measures. The latter is of interest only to collectors while the use of the weapons in real life is of interest to the general public. If this material is excluded than everything of less significance should be deleted as well. Felsic2 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC) I added notifications to Talk:1986 FBI Miami shootout and Talk:École Polytechnique massacre. Felsic2 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes per Patar knight and Felsic2, who make complete arguments I cannot really improve upon. If WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are satisfied, there's no reason to not cover reported impact from a subject, no matter what that subject is. The idea that any particular weapon or tool would be excluded from this long-held Wikipedia approach seems preposterous. (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in random requests for comment) Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes enough weight has been given by editors in this discussion to show that it has some significance to notoriety, and it is well sourced. StarHOG (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes this is a comprehensive article (nice job everyone). There is a WP:WEIGHT problem with extensive discussion of the gun specs and appearances on TV programs and movies and nothing about well-known and significant real-life incidents involving the gun. (uninvolved editor summoned by feedback service) ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

added section CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

1.Miguel Escopeta re: "No major changes in firearm laws occurred", The Canada Firearms Act, 1995 was enacted. You seem knowledgeable in these subjects. What does "major" mean here? Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Unlike in Australia, where firearms had to be turned in after their shooting, which was a major change, existing owners in Canada were permitted to keep their firearms, provided they filled out paperwork. A different outcome altogether. It was not considered a major change in terms of continued possession. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC) User:Miguel Escopea, Thank you for your response.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Miguel Escopea "major' is subjective, I think the Canada Firearms Act is major per the sources provided and Patar Knights sources, and per the guideline("major" is not stated)"legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage" applies. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: "No major changes in firearm laws occurred" is not a standard based on any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If it were, this article would be much, much shorter. 19:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It actually is a standard based on the WP:Firearms guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use that has stood the test of time for many years now. The goal of that guideline is to avoid having firearm articles becoming littered with every "good use" and "bad use" mentions of day to day crime. "On January 1st, 20XX, Joe Schmo successfully used a BRRP MK II to defend himself in his garage." That guideline also states that specific firearms that become widely notorious because of their usages, and result in major changes in gun laws, should include mention of the usages in the firearm article. For example, the Carcano rifle used in the JFK assassination, the pistol used in the Columbine shooting, etc., that resulted in major changes in both gun laws and in public perceptions. The guideline has long been used on Wikipedia. It is also meant to keep firearms articles from being a major magnet for attracting POV warriers, such as yourself. Seems very reasonable to me. (unlike you, I actually sign my comments) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making personal attacks, such as calling me a "POV warrior".
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use is not a guideline. It is an advice page. WP:ADVICEPAGE. Further, it does not say that the standard is a "major change". It says, "For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage..." There has been legislation changed as a result of this criminal use. If you actually followed that advice, you'd support inclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I submitted a request for closure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Request_for_Administrator_to_Close_RfC_Talk:Ruger_Mini-14.23Rfc:_Add_major_incidents_to_article The Legobot removed the RFC template CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

wikilink +[edit]

Pls add wikilink to .300 AAC Blackout in article Ruger_Mini-14#300_Blackout. thx 80.187.99.70 (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Felsic2 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ruger Mini-14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)