User talk:Mike Searson: Difference between revisions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdRoRRai9UM

File:MIKE-sm.jpg Template:Archive box collapsible

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

My bad on the edit explanation. ALL the material excised is Ruger promotion. Most of the references are from Ruger's website. One of the refs is a dead link. I don't want an edit war. Let's submit this for arbitration. I can't foresee a compromise. I'm big on the No Promotion Rule. Tapered (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I like Martin Guitars, Taylor Guitars, and the author Tarquin Hall much more than I like Storm Ruger. Check out my April 2014 edits of their Wikipedia pages to see excised promotional material. Here's the my Contributions Page. Tapered (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think by now you know that I'm not anti-gun, nor am I trying to "sugar coat" anything about the industry or the firearms themselves, but am I off my nut to make an edit like this. This has touched off a discussion in the StG 44 Talk page here. I have absolutely no problem with the term "assault rifle" when its used properly, but in this instance am I missing something? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, found the answer here (click the "more translations" link), so yes "sturm" = "assault" in German. I still think my edit was a better use of grammar and better prose, but its not worth debating. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks for your note. I don't doubt the legal situation. I removed the citation because nothing in there seemed to discuss California law, but I didn't remove the text itself. Could you add those links as cites? That'd solve the matter. Rezin (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if I'm just being blind, can you restore the citation with the correct page number? Rezin (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. Rezin (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am filing a request for discretionary sanction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because of your editing. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]