text:
User talk:Thatguy96

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Mk 11 mod 0, SPR, SAM-R, recon rifle
Jesus H Christ! Thanks a ton for updating the SPR page and for writing up the SAM-R page. I knew I didn't cover everything in enough detail for the SPR. I also had no clue the SPR photo I put up was an MSTN clone.

Good to see some info on the SAM-R. You have any idea where one would go to get that gas block?

Thanks again,

Tin soldier 01:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GShG-7.62 minigun
Why the remame?, The GShG-7.62 IS a rotary barreled weapon and is the Warsaw Pact equivalent of the M134 and works the same way as a Minigun but has 4 barrels instead. Classing the GShG-7.62 as a Minigun would make it easier to describe and refer to that type of weapon.

EX STAB 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Because Minigun is an informal "class" at best, and to my knowledge is not a term used to describe the weapon by those who built it and use it. This is the exact same reasoning I put forth in the discussion section of the article itself.  The term "minigun" is one of two things, an informal name used to classify all rotary barreled weapons of rifle caliber, or a specific name applied to GE's line in particular.  The Russian weapon in question is not the latter, and should not be title with an informal name primarily used by video game players.  Its a rotary barreled machine gun.  That's why my suggestion is that the article be renamed to GShG-7.62 machine gun for clarity.  Calling it a "minigun" will only serve to confuse people who will then go to the minigun article and see there that it says its not. -- Thatguy96 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

seal recon rifle
do you have a source or something for this article? I'm unable to get anything in a directed google search. I'd also like an image of the rifle. I know some of the companies involved, but I haven't heard of this rifle outside of this article. Avriette 02:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For research

 * This is a good article I came across on the 500: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3623/is_200212/ai_n9153100 Ve3 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

yo
Yo homes. You know your sig is misspelled? ⇒   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  04:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what you're talking about, so no. I was unaware I had a signature of any sort on this beyond the ones I could mispell myself when editing discussions.

do you type your own signature when you edit discussions? or do you use ~ ? I had noticed one place it was seplled "Thagtuy96 or something like that. ⇒    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Id
Hey, do you know what the optic on this is? I don't recognize it. Ve3 03:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * ITL MARS, there was a small purchase by the Marines, and one's just popped up in a picture with the US Army.

 * Great, thanks! I will add info to pic. Ve3 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

AC-54
I didn't revert your removal, but you might want to reconsider, here's a ref that lists such an aircraft. Akradecki 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Never mind...I found that there was an AC, but it wasn't a gunship, so your removal was entirely appropriate.... Akradecki 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Project Blackspot
Were you involved in Blackspot? My father was the supervisor of the night shift in the avionics shop. He was a staff seargeant, but his GS rating was something like GS-9, so he was in charge of higher ranking NCO's. Do you know if it's declassified or not? I've been interested in talking to someone else about it, but I don't know about its classified status. I can email you a picture of a Blackspot patch to confirm my credibility and give my name and father's name. He won't tell me much about it. Billy Blythe 01:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was in no way connected with Black Spot. All the information I have is publically available.  I would hold off on sending me any information as I don't know how sensitive or not any of it is.  I was actually in the process of trying to see if there were people in the USAF who might have some additional information.  I had emailed the historian at the White Sands missile range about a drop test on a submunition device that seemed to match one in description often linked to Black Spot projects.  He said his records didn't show the aircraft type, but forwarded my queries on to others.  I have been meaning to send another email off to them to see whatever happened to that, as this was some 2-3 months ago now.  Sorry I could not be of more help. -- Thatguy96 19:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the two aircraft of Project Blackspot did not survive. It had its rudder shot off, managed to land at Ubon RTAFB, and exploded on the runway. The entire crew perished. I too have tried to talk to USAF historians and they deny knowledge of the project, probably because it involved bombing Laos and Cambodia. I can probably tell you more than the Air Force would, but I don't know if it's declassified or legal. --Billy
 * Its odd really that they're so secretive, because the aircraft appears in unclassified designation handbooks, both under the AC-123K designation, and later under the NC-123K designation. Also, this story is interesting, because the prevailing wisdom was that both had survived, been returned as much as possible to a transport configuration and returned to appropriate elements in SVN to assist with the perpetual shortage of appropriate aircraft.  I should actually send that Email I was talking about to them to see whatever happened with my query, because it was directly related to this, but without actually stating that IIRC.  I'll keep you up to speed if I find anything, but please keep me informed as well as to developments on your end.  This is getting more interesting than I had really expected. -- Thatguy96 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to post something odd. I was convinced one of the four or five pictures of Black Spot aircraft that exist were of both airplanes after the supposed demodification, which would challange the validity of the story that one was completely destroyed. This is not one of the pictures. The only demodified picture is of a single aircraft. The only picture of both of two Black Spot aircraft is dated August 1971, at Davis-Monthan AFB, which shows two relatively beat up AC/NC-123K. The odd thing is that one appears to feature a replacement rudder, and neither of the camoflage patterns match that of the aircraft provided by the USAF of the demodified aircraft. Now, this could be as simple as the aircraft got a new paint job after being demodified, but if it was designed to return to transport elements, this seems odd, since none of those aircraft were painted in this manner. Were there 3 aicraft instead of two? Did the demodified NC-123Ks continue to serve on more secretive projects (Heavy Hook/Heavy Chain?). I don't know, but there seems to be far more questions than I initially thought about. -- Thatguy96 17:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Another interesting side note on this, found a picture in an online gallery of an all black C-123K that appeared to be associated with Heavy Hook/Heavy Chain. The guy who took it said those queried about it were adimant that it was actually a UC-123K, and that they were not forth coming about any other info.  The Heavy Hook/Heavy Chain connection comes from the fact that the aircraft was supposedly piloted by ROC contract crews, most likely for the CIA. -- Thatguy96 03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You're 100% correct about the C-123K. It's getting late and I didn't read the fine print on the display sign. Thanx for catching my mistake. v/r Peter Rimar Chitrapa 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem, easy mistake, just saw it and changed it. You would've got it I'm sure.  -- Thatguy96 03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

M113 - Gavin?
Hi, I'm not defending the POV changes that have been made to the M-113 page, but the Simon Dunstan book on the M-113 had some commentaries from soldiers in Vietnam and one of them referred to it as a 'Gavin'. To be honest, I wasn't sure where it came from, and I'm in no way saying its an official name, but its possible that it was an unofficial nickname at one point. Just thought you might like to know. Cheers. Douglasnicol 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Gavin is the least of my concerns with the user's edits. If you look at the complete content of what the user (I believe it is Mike Sparks himself) changes it clearly does not fit with Wikipedia's POV policies.  I blanketly revert his edits on these grounds.  By all means if you have a citation you can put it in with appropriate language, unlike this user's blanket statements. -- Thatguy96 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll dig the book out, I wasn't arguing with your edits by the way, since I understand the POV rules. Douglasnicol 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I understand that, but since anyone can read this, I figured I'd make it clear what the context was. I would myself be very interested in what Simon Dunstan's book has to say just on an academic level. -- Thatguy96 17:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe that Gavin has become the unofficial nickname of the vehicle by now, at least in the US. It won't spread to other nations for obvious reasons - why would they name a vehicle after a US general ? Rhetorical question.

Another point, which I wanted to ask you about, and perhaps a little OT:

"Just another point, you'll note the Israelis aren't buying much of anything brand new in the AFV department. They didn't contract anyone to churn out the new heavy APCs from scratch (all of the major types being based on first generation MBTs), and the M113s are also quite old at heart."

I consider this as a major strength of the Israelis ( and the Taiwanese, btw, who maybe are even better at taking old tanks and refurbishing them to meet the latest demands at minimum overall costs ) - they improvise things and as a result their improvisations end up to be better than any competitor that was "built from scratch." There really is no competition whatsoever for these IDF APC built on old MBT chassises, now is there ? Or look at their uparmored and modified versions of the M113, the "Kasman" in particular, being designed for urban warfare. It kicks the Stryker's ass in any regard - cost, maintenance, off-road mobility, air-liftability, air-dropability, amphibious qualities ( OK, cancel that - the M113 Kasman would probably sink to the ground due to the add-on armor, I'll give you that ), maneuverability, etc.

Building something from scratch is always harder and more fault-prone - and fatal faults at that - than improving already existing, battle-proven concepts.

I always deemed that to be a particularly American character trait as well ... to stick to what's good, and make it even better, if possible. Think about the B-52, the 747, the (Sportster) Evolution engine of Harley-Davidson, the concept of PCs ( full downward compatibility ), etc.

But apparently this philosophy has given way to a mindless "newer is better"-idiocy. No, it ain't. Better is better - the mere fact that something is new says nothing about its qualities.

I would appreciate some feedback of yours - why do you favor the Stryker ? Do you seriously believe it is superior to a up-armored and modernized M113, which would come at a fraction of the cost of a Stryker, and yet equal or surpass it in all regards ?

Write me at axel.bavaria@gmail.com

Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

M1919A4 in 7.62x51
fyi

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=76882219

plenty of Israeli M1919A4's in 7.62x51

best!

Izaakb 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the M1919A4 is still not technically a 7.62x51mm weapon. I removed it, despite the numerous conversions (including the US Mk 21 Mod ), because of the fact that it was unclear and could become a source of confusion. -- Thatguy96 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think your latest edit is most appropriate. Just because it was converted doesn't change that it exists, and indicating it was converted from .30-06 is very useful.  The Israeli M1919A4 is still widely in use and IMI has produced all new parts for them.  Izaakb 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Colt AR-15 Variants
Wow! Thanks for those edits, that's a lot of valuable information. Did you want me to Wikilink all of them, or is there a reason why you didn't? Hayden120 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was too impatient and just Wikilinked them. Took a damn long time; maybe I need some sort of automatic editer. I think it would be better if each Wikilink took the viewer to the exact location in the article for that particular variant. These edits would probably have to take place over time because it would probably a fair amount of time and effort... Hayden120 10:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't wikilink them all because I didn't think there were necessarily appropriate articles for all of them, since many are just export variants, and aren't really discussed in the articles. What Colt "names" an M16A2 or M16A3 really has nothing to do with US military nomenclature, which is why I didn't link them to the M16 article.  Meh, it can stay that want until there are more appropriate articles. -- Thatguy96 14:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please help me keep an eye on this page as I have a feeling a lot of incorrect changes are going to be made, and not be detected by the rest of the community. It is not always easy to tell if the new edits are correct or not, especially if they don't even leave a note for the reason (preferably with a reference) in their edit summary. Thanks. -- Hayden120 06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In movie black hawk down we seen colt model 733 carried by delta operators but there is another model carried by some delta operators such as Eric Bana charector SFC Norm Hoot, what was that model ? a friend of mine told me it was 727 but this model had bottle neck barrel just like the M4 while hoot's gun had a straight A2 barrel ..so i suspect in model 723. can you verify which model it was 727 or 723 or other model, thanks --Max Mayr 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

here is a link showing the gun : http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/EricArchives/Films/BlackHawkDown/Behind-The-Scenes/BHD-BTS-035.jpg --Max Mayr 12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Its odd. I know this question has come up a number of times in various places, and I can't seem to remember the answer.  Still, the most important thing to remember is that its a dramatic movie, and therefore the guns are props, regardless of their functionality (ie, real, fake, airsoft, whatever).  This prop actually appears to have a straight A1 profile barrel, given how its visible smaller in diameter than the muzzle device.  The A2 rear sights and third generation stock suggest it could have been a conversion of some type by a prop company from a civilian legal weapons, such as a late model Colt AR-15 Lightweight carbine (R6530).  Not being able to see the roll-stamping on the magazine well which would explain it for sure, I'm going to go with the likelihood of this being a non-standard prop gun. -- Thatguy96 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks but why cant be model 723 ? --Max Mayr 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, well in your response you said "hoot's gun had a straight A2 barrel ..so i suspect in model 723." I assumed you had checked this against the listing.  I actually do have it listed as having an A1 profile, so if that's accurate than you're right, there's no reason why I can't also just be a 723. -- Thatguy96 23:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, i check it again the 723 had A1 barrel as you said so i would go with model 725B which according to the list had S-1-F group , A1 rear sight and A2 straight barrel which fit with Hoot's gun. --Max Mayr 10:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a picture to the M725B : http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/m725b.jpg --Max Mayr 10:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if we're going to start using a prop site as a way of judging we can go back to my original statement about this being a prop in a movie. I remain convinced that the picture you provided to me shows an A1 barrel, not an A2. -- Thatguy96 12:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case it must be 723. I tell you the truth I dont know what is the difference between A1 and A2 barrel, I thought its like the barrels of M16A1 and M16A2 rifles respectively , as an eastern european ( SLOVAKIA ) Iam more familiar to Russian weapons but Im trying to be more modern by learning more on american systems ..ok  --Max Mayr 18:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of Coax M240
Hello, you made a change to the M240 article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M240_machine_gun&diff=156986310&oldid=156977213 The caption which you changed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M240_Coax_on_USMC_LAV.jpg was directly copy and pasted from the Department of Defense's website: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0001277&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2000/Marines/DM-SD-00-01277.JPG Even though this weapon clearly has a pintle and is mounted where the commander's gun would normally sit, it is not clear whether or not this weapon was moved into position in order to more effectively clean the M240, since you were not the photographer of this image nor the Marine in the photograph. You can't stake this claim and say with 100% certainty what the photograph is showing is indeed a M240E1 or is indeed is not the coax machine gun; therefore we must rely on the official caption of the photograph. Please do not change the captions from official DoD photographs. -TabooTikiGod 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, the official USMC line on the LAV-25 is that it has a single M240 coaxial machine gun, and a single M240E1 machine gun mounted on a pintle. I don't care what the official DoD caption says, they're not always right, its mounted on a pintle about the turret, which violates any standard definition of "coaxial" when talking about AFVs.  I changed it for specifically that reason.  The caption is confusing because its inaccurate.  -- Thatguy96 21:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not argue that the DoD is always 100% correct when it comes to captions however in this case, I feel that it is unclear and not without uncertainty that you can guarantee that it is for one a M240E1 and not a M240 nor if it's indeed the coax or not. -TabooTikiGod 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can debate whether its an M240 or E1 or another variant, that's fine. Its unclear because the weapon is partially diassembled.  However, it is clearly not the coaxial gun, because it is mounted in the pintle above the turret.  The coaxial gun on any AFV is mounted coaxially with the main gun.  The coaxial MG on the LAV-25 is in the turret, coaxial to the 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon.  I see absolutely no scenario where the coaxial gun would be mounted in the turret pintle for servicing.  -- Thatguy96 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you see the M242 Bushmaster cannon in this photograph? I think not.  It is feasible that the weapon was put on the pintle for easier access for cleaning and maintenance.  The evidence of this photograph can not be argued for or against this fact.  Like I said, the only thing we can go off is the from the caption.  -TabooTikiGod 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, it just seems to be arguing against common sense as well, since the coaxial gun is obviously removed as well. This would mean the pintle mounted weapon was removed from the pintle for servicing, and the coaxial weapon removed from its mount and then rigged to the pintle for servicing instead of following the coaxial gun to a work bench.  While you're right, I can't argue that this isn't what happened, it seem to me totally ludicrous that this would be the mainenance policy. -- Thatguy96 21:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually noticed that as well, the coax missing and for that very reason I thought that perhaps (in a not-so-logical-method), this Marine decided to do just that. Remove the coax and mount it on the pintle for service and maintenance.  Too bad we can't jump into a time machine and go to that very spot and ask this guy what he was doing but it's not feasible that this was the scenario, which I think you could agree. -TabooTikiGod 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Operation Shed Light
Hello, As i said earlier only minor changes are needed. I read through the article and it it met 4 of the 5 criterion. The only minor problem I saw was the reference section. References and Citations need to be combined into a single section. Try making citations a sub topic of References. When your done with that bring your article to review for more opinions. Marcusmax 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright, thanks. I had based it on the way it had been split up in the article Operation Igloo White, which has been assessed as A-Class.  I can combine it into one section very easily, but is this really necessary? -- Thatguy96 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you have made the changes, you now meet all 5 criteria. Good luck Marcusmax 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Seal recon rifle
I Have a picture, if you are interested email me on hectortrojan1193@yahoo.com .--Max Mayr 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xm706m1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Xm706m1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 15:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern US Inf Weapons Nav
I have added some tweaks (discussed on it's talk page), but nice work for creating the nav box: Template:ModernUSInfWeaponsNav. Oh yes, check out user pages like mine or User:Kirill Lokshin for moving sticking your medals on your front page ;-) --Deon Steyn 07:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and your minor edits are great as well. -- Thatguy96 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Your article, Operation Shed Light, has been reviewed for a Good Article. Unfortunately, it is currently lacking in one or more aspects of the criteria for a good article. Comments have been left on the article's talk page. Please feel free to contact me as soon as the problems have been fixed, and I will sign off on the article. Thanks! JKBrooks85 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks a lot. I will get on those issues as time allows. -- Thatguy96 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Drop me a line when/if you've made the fixes and I'll sign off or make further suggestions. Good luck! JKBrooks85 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's been a week since the review. I like the changes you've done, and I'm going to sign off on the article. As it is now, however, I don't think it's worthy of an FAC. I'd suggest reworking the article for flow and readability and making another thorough grammar check before even thinking of trying an FAC. The article's great fact-wise, but the presentation is somewhat awkward. That's just my view of things, and I'd suggest a peer review if you think I'm wrong. Those are usually a great way to get others' opinions, but it can take a while as there's usually a backlog. JKBrooks85 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're right, my schedule has just been absurdly busy as of late to devote time to my hobbies :(. I agree fully that the article needs more work.  Thanks.  -- Thatguy96 17:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

H-3 official names
Please provide reliable sources for your claims that the HH-3F's official name was "Sea King", not "Pelican", and that the HH-3E was officially named "Jolly Green Giant". I have read souces to the contrary on both counts, and will be checking my books to see if I can locate the cites for that. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's according to DoD 4120-15.L Model Designation of Military Aircraft, Rockets and Guided Missiles, dated 1974, 1998, and 2004. I'll put the references into the articles. You can download them here:  -- Thatguy96 03:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't trying to be contentious, just had read different. Those are the official sources, so end of issue. Thanks for the link - I love reading through docs like that, just for the historical info. - BillCJ 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem, I should've sourced them in the first place. My fault. -- Thatguy96 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

UH-1 Article
Hi there. Your sandbox work looks pretty good. I understand the direction you are going there - the main article variants would be cut down to an outline and some details, and the variant details would go into the Variants article.

I think you have made a good start there in that direction (it would probably help you if I didn't keep editing the UH-1 page, eh?) The only concern I have with what you have created is that there is still a lot of overlap in the variants section beweeen the two articles. Perhaps it needs to be virtually deleted from the UH-1 article and concentrate on the operational history, etc, there?

I still think that the development history of the UH-1 is the history of its variants and that if you split them out to another article then you really have to remove that section entirely and just put in a "see variants article" tag instead. The main thing I am concerned about is that other editors will come along in the future, see the details are sparse and then flesh out more details over time on the UH-1 article again. Then we will have a mess that can only be fixed by either merging the two articles (!) or else deleting the whole development section and putting it all in the variants article.

It maybe worth pointing out that there is a history here - the UH-1 and UH-1F/P articles were once separate and were merged. That is how I came to add more details to the other variants - it made it look like the "F" was the only model worth discussing!

-Ahunt 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?
Could you please explain more fully why you changed the main image on AC-47 Spooky from a picture that showed the plane's guns to one were the guns were masked by the wing?

The picture you preferred could by ANY C-47. Surely the main image should show the armament?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it better shows the entire plane, instead of simply highlighting its armament. There seems to be an assumption that people know what any C-47 looks like as well.  In a vacuum I would prefer a better picture that shows the entire aircraft as well, but one that shows the entire aircraft.  As it stands now you have one that shows a C-47 in the SEA over black camouflage pattern only found on AC-47s (EC-47s were SEA over a light gray of some sort, and would be otherwise obviously different; some select VNAF non-gunship C-47s appear to have worn this scheme, but that seems to be relatively rare compared to the bare metal, white top, and SEA over white/gray), plus on closer inspect it also features the "Spooky" nose art.  We just need a better picture in general. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms
Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so do I. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:SPR-A Profile.jpg, Image:Mk12 Mod0 Profile.jpg and Image:SPR-B Profile.jpg
pls add any sources thx--Sanandros (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, unless someone else has a source for those, they might not actually be PD. I put those up over 3 years ago and to be honest, I don't remember where I got them from exactly.  Those pictures are so common now on the net it might be hard to discern for sure.  -- Thatguy96 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very bad 'cause I wanted to upload these pics on Commons but they'll be deleting very fast.--Sanandros (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand. I was under the impression that they were official pics, but I'm not sure where they came from.  I'll check some files I have lying around tonight to see if its at all obvious. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

CAR 15
Hi, glad you have an interest in weapons and weapons systems. Studies and Observations Group carried CAR-15s in the field. When the Navy SEALs were redeployed out of South Vietnam they were nice enough to donate their Stoner systems to us at Command and Control North MACV-SOG. We always held them in very high regard for that, and for being kindred spirits.

Today you seemed to have arbitrarily deleted the following from the info on the CAR-15:

"In the Second Indochina War, the CAR-15 was the standard weapon carried by U.S. Army Special Forces troops and their indiginous commando allies operating out of Studies and Observations Group."

Let's get it worked out to be more informative. Thanks. Keep up the great work. Best Regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My edit came along with a comment that explained it. The deletion was not arbitrary.  The only known operational use of the CAR-15 Carbine was by US Navy SEAL teams.  US Army Special Forces and elements assigned to SOG are known to have tested the CAR-15 Submachine Gun, and later the CAR-15 Commando (XM177 series).  I have spent a fair amount of time researching such things and have found no indication that the CAR-15 Carbine was utilized by these forces.  Note, the term CAR-15 often gets misused or confused, as it refers to the entire CAR-15 weapon system, not solely the XM177 series.  I have no doubt certain first person accounts refer to a "CAR-15 Carbine," but I also have no doubt that these refer to the XM177 series (Colt 609/610/629), not the actual CAR-15 Carbine (Colt 605). -- Thatguy96 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

T-37 Tweet Specs
Thanks for adding the T-37 specs. I sat down tonight to do that, and you had it completed, and it looks good too. I split off the A-37 about this time last year, but I didn't realize until today that the T-37 was still showing the A-37 specs. THanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Saw your message that you wouldn't mind if someone else tackled it, and I knew where to find some stats quick.  Still not complete, so if your sources conflict or have more then you might want to edit it to make it more complete/accurate.  Squadron/Signal books are known for various typos right. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:3 M60 gun.jpg
Hi, I have nominated this image for deletion on Commons -. Kevin (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Thatguy96 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal of C8 Rifle
Hi, I've noticed that you put the tag onto the C8 Rifle. I have removed it after 5 months of discussion and there was no consensus. Any Response?; H2H (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that 5 months of no consensus in my mind does not mean in my mind that a merge proposal should be removed? Or that it was 4-4, two of the opposes were based on inaccurate observations (even if "the C8 [was] a scoped Carbine" that would not be grounds for a split; the comparisons to the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine and M16 and M4 carbines were also not comparable for the reasons stated in the comments), the third oppose was based on the inaccurate assertions made in oppose comment #2, and the last one was based on the assertion that the C7 and C8 are "completely different weapons," which is also totally inaccurate.  So my response is that the merge should have gone ahead simply because the grounding of the opposition was not based on real facts, understanding, or readily comparable instances elsewhere on wikipedia.  I also took the liberty of looking at your contributions, and I don't see any history of editing military or weapons related articles in the last 1000 edits, so I'm really not sure what your level of understanding of the system is or why you felt the need to lend your vote to the oppose side.  -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"I don't see any history of editing military or weapons related articles in the last 1000 edits" - in order to head off any criticism of yourself, could you detail on this talk page or on your user page your military expertise? You're clearly interested in military topics, so you must be an expert on the subject. Tell us about your qualifications to edit so many military articles; are you in the armed forces, do you make or design weapons yourself? I know you have lots and lots of edits on the topic, you must know a fair amount from direct experience, rather than reading Jane's a lot and also internet forums etc. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to immediately apologize for being snide, but I'm not sure how I personally could respond to this without it coming out at all. Firstly, I want to say that I questioned the editor's knowledge on the subject based on their posting history and prompted a response to the question you yourself are posing.  I did not say they obviously did not know what they were talking about, but that I was curious as to their level of understanding and why they felt the need to chime in in a discussion where it appeared to me they had limited knowledge.  Secondly, according to the guidelines developed by the wiki firearms project, subvariants rarely if ever need their own pages.  The people who responded in opposition to the merge had a concept that the C8 did not fit this definition, which was wrong.
 * Based on this, I feel no need to head off criticism of myself, because I was not asking whether or not the other editor was an expert as a requirement to chime in on the discussion. They asked me for a response upon taking a unilateral decision to close my merge proposal based on an arbitrary understanding of an acceptable timeframe to have such a thing open.  I responded by challenging why they felt the need to tie the vote and what their level of understanding was, especially since this just seemed out of form since they had no history of being involved in these discussions.  This was to further prompt a discussion on the issue.  In some cases people have differing understandings of the history, and therefore have a differing understanding of wiki firearms guidelines, which is reasonable.  I still have no idea why the editor felt the need to chime in, since they did not respond to me.  It could have been reasonable and based on just as much "experience" as I apparently am required to have to make a determination on the subject, but I just don't know, which is why I asked and provided a context for my questioning.
 * In response to your question, no I am not a military veteran or weapons designer. I, like most people on wikipedia, make a large number of edits based on indirect research rather than direct experience (which is inadmissible when editing wikipedia without a verifiable source).  In fact, a large amount of direct experience would, according to the overarching wikipedia guidelines, give me no greater authority to edit than anyone else (one of the reasons why I stopped editing it, because of the constant need to revert and edit people who were mistaken or willfully trying to insert incorrect statements).  Ironically, I work for Globalsecurity.org, which means I can cite myself, since we are treated as a reputable source (which I think we very much should be).  I am not, however, an "expert" in the terms you have outlined. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

UH-1 variants references
Good job referencing the UH-1G and E/UH-1U entries. The fact tags had been there a while and I could not find anything on those in my books or online. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I had been sitting on Dennis Buley's site for sometime, just never got around to fixing the ref.  The UH-1G entry I added because of that ref in the first place and then never cited it.  Only had myself to blame on that one. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All good now though. :) Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Air operation
Hi, User:Tplusplus just created some news articles about the Vietnam War operations, so could you check them to see whether it's an air operation or not. If it's an air operation, you know what to do, thank. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion of edit to M16 rifle
Hello. I noticed you reverted my removal of incorrect and uncited material from the M16 rifle article with no explaination. I'd like to know why. Thanks!-- Patton t / c 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The US Army uses both the M16A4 and M16A2. Didn't think this needed an explanation.  The M4 has largely been substituted in current operations, but units could easily convert back to their A4s.  The US Army hasn't gotten rid of them, they're just sitting in arms rooms all over the place.  The A2 is pretty much out of service with the exception of various rear area units and reserve/guard elements that haven't converted yet. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stryker vehicle controversy

The article Stryker vehicle controversy has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Section that linked to this was deleted.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Stryker vehicle controversy for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Stryker vehicle controversy, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Stryker vehicle controversy until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Marcus  Qwertyus   21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Stryker vehicle controversy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stryker vehicle controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Stryker vehicle controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Marcus  Qwertyus   18:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

M4
who officially regards it as an M4 ? just interested who the actual offical body is, cos I've never heard of it being called that, since it's derived from an assault rifle how does making it a carbine turn it into an SMG ? ☭   мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not say it is derived from an assault rifle (an ambiguous term). The US Army's official nomenclature is Carbine, 5.56mm, M4.  The official nomenclature for the XM177 series is Submachine Gun, 5.56mm, XM177.  These nomenclatures are in many ways arbitrary. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a short barrel M16 though...doesn't that make it derived from an assault rifle? and isnt carbine a subgroup of rifle ? (which smgs definitely are not)(reading down the article - this disagrees)(which i think could be confused with the Colt 9mm SMG). It uses an intermediate cartrige (a smaller rifle cartrige, the kind that an AR is defined as using) and not a pistol cartrige like smgs use. Since when was the US army the worldwide authority on gun nomenclature ?

you're not trying to say "it's an SMG" are you ? you're just saying "the army calls it an SMG for some reason therefore we have to call it that" but do we ? that article is called CAR15, the civilian name, so the article should focus on the gun itself not what the army calls it? I dunno - I'll leave it all alone its too confusing for me. BTW an IP editor has changed it back to AR   ☭    мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 05:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The M16's official US Army nomenclature is rifle, not assault rifle, and you're right that carbines are a subgroup of rifles. The official designation for the XM177 is submachine gun, whatever the technical definition of SMG is.  The M231 is also officially designated as a submachine gun.  Since the alpha-numeric element is in the US Army nomenclature, there's no reason not to use its technical designation.  Furthermore, Colt and the US Army both referred to the Model 607 as a submachine gun, regardless of the technical term. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thatguy96


text:
User talk:Bennyp81

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Route 107
Hi! That was a welcome surprise to see something on ol' Hawthorne Boulevard. I grew up in Torrance not far from it. I made one change: PCH hasn't been part of 101 for decades. - Lucky 6.9 03:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the offer! I might just take you up on that.  I agree there should be some convention to these articles. - Lucky 6.9 04:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways
Hello. I noticed you started this WikiProject. Count me in since I have also contributed to these articles. Now, I already noticed you let Lucky 6.9 know about this. The only other user off the top of my head right now who might be interested is SPUI, who seems to be the resident road geek here.

Speaking of SPUI, he seems to be on a crusade to rename "California state highways" to "California State Routes". A few days ago, he renamed all of the articles that way. And he was the one who posted Category:California state highways on CFD to be renamed like that. So I might suggest that we should also rename this Wikiproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Routes. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CASH mileposts
hey!

I was wondering where i can find the iunformation about the mileposts and counties? well, calNEXUS has county names but no mileposts; do you get this from the state highway code?

Thanks, --atanamir 04:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

CASR wikiproj template
Do we need the template anymore? Because it wound up on Templates for deletion.

--Rschen7754 20:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

US Interstate highway stub problems
At WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals there is an ongoing debate about U.S. Interstate Highway Stub and US Highway stub... --00:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of California State Routes
Someone wants to convert this to a template so it wound up at Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes --Rschen7754 05:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Road stubs
All of the following made their way to WP:SFD:

 * Arizona State Route Stub
 * Kentucky State Highway Stub
 * Maryland-State-Highway-Stub
 * Massachusetts-State-Highway-Stub
 * Michigan-State-Highway-Stub
 * Missouri-State-Highway-Stub
 * Nevada-State-Highway-Stub
 * New-Hampshire-State-Highway-Stub
 * Nhroute
 * Washington-State-Highway-Stub

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Final state highway naming conventions debate
Bennyp81, your participation is welcome in the State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

California SR infobox discussion
Bennyp81, you are invited to participate in the (definitely less structured than WP:SRNC) WT:CASH infobox discussion. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Inactivity notification
You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. '''If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754''' (talk - contribs) 20:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ca144h.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ca144h.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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Angusposter.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Angusposter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Work in progress, Fictional places of Eddings, would you help
Hello Bennyp81...Would you be interested in helping with an article/list about the fictional places of the works of the Eddings that I am currently writing in my user space? I really don't know what to do with it, but if you were willing to help me with it, that would be great! If no one thinks it is worth it, I will just get rid of it. Pop on over if you want. - LA @ 06:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Bennyp81


text:
User talk:Rmeier~enwiki

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

New EMD articles
Hey, thanks for creating those articles on various EMD locomotives. As you add more, please take a moment to update WikiProject_Trains/Todo to reflect the work that you've done (I've noticed a few of the red links there turning blue as you add articles). Also, when you add a new page about a specific locomotive model, add it to the Category:Locomotives. Thanks! slambo 21:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: Copyrights, Formatting and Infoboxes
I'll answer your questions as one reply here...

Re: Copyrights. The cc-by-sa-2.0 was the closest match in my first read of Image copyright tags to what the Creative Commons website said to use after I answered the questions there. I see that there are some noncommercial wiki template tags now listed there as well, so I didn't really have to drop that part of the licence. The photos that I'm uploading here aren't the absolute best photos, but they're good enough to be viewed on the screen and in small formats. So, after reviewing the licenses that I saw with my own goals for the photos, cc-by-sa-2.0 is it.

Re: Formatting and Infoboxes. Yeah, the infobox (Template:Railroad) is a bit big, but it's not really what I consider a final format. I want to play with the box a little more to find a better looking display, but haven't had a chance to do so yet (I'm just back from Trainfest, and only have a few minutes right now; most of my free time the last few weeks has been getting ready for the show). My screen resolution is typically 1024x768, and I don't have any other toolbars on my screen. The way the box and photo are sized now, they take up about 1/3 of the column width, with the text next to them using about 2/3 of the column width. I was trying for an infobox that would come out something like the one on British Rail Class 01 or on one of the state pages like that for Wisconsin.

As to the states listed for CNW, I don't really know enough about the railroad itself to set it at a specific time period. I started with what I found in the article and went from there. Perhaps that part of the infobox could be rephrased to more closely reflect the railroad's territory?

slambo 04:52, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Re: List of US railroads
Just checked it over and it looks fine now. The only thing obvious to me about it today was that it was missing the International Great Northern in the Fallen Flags section, so I added it there. slambo 11:55, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies again
I must have stuck the thingie on your excellent page when in a particularly foul mood. It did strike me as unnecessary at first, but it has already become interesting even to my locomotive-ignorant self. The VfD business is by now almost as embarrassing to me as it must be infuriating to you; as far as I remember I'm not supposed to delete it the VfD notice, but if it's still there fourteen or so hours from now I'll dig around in the howto pages to see if I can legitimately remove it the notice. Or I'll contact a moderator or something.

Our Revenge Is Sweet Department adds: Feel free to slap VfD notices on any two of my pages! -- Hoary 11:09, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

 * Noticing that the page is still listed at VfD, I've contacted an administrator, suggesting that he should tot up the votes as soon as possible, declare the page saved, and move on. (Of course I know how to remove this material myself, but guess that I shouldn't do so. -- Hoary 04:42, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your kind words. I took a couple of days off to cool off, but I'm fine now.Rmeier 06:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

cowls and cabs
I recently wrote up a cab unit page completely forgetting about the distinction between them and cowl units (plus, not noticing that the cowl unit article existed). I was hoping you could give the page a good once-over and fix anything I messed up. I'm more of a modern freight guy anyway and that's the sort of thing I'm bound to make mistakes on. Thanks. Ckape 07:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooops. I've been off-line for a while. Give me a few days, and then look at carbody unit and cab unit. I've been thinking about creating “carbody unit” for several weeks now. The link for cab unit has been around for a while, long before you actually created the article, and I wanted to point out that “cab unit” refers only to A units, whereas “carbody unit” refers to both A units and B units.

 * On the other hand, both cab unit and carbody unit are accepted phrases, and both refer to units where the sides and roofs are structural supports for the entire unit. Therefore, I didn't just want to delete references to cab unit.

 * After I've added my thoughts to both articles, we can decide whether to keep the articles separate, or merge them. We could even seek comments from more people. Rmeier 03:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Since "cab unit" and "carbody unit" are so closely related, I decided to make them one article. Rmeier 06:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Fairbanks-Morse
Page FM-344 of The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide (complete reference in the list page) lists CFA16-4 and CFB16-4, and photos of PRR and NYC units are at. The same site has photos of CPA24-5 units from LIRR, NH, NYC and the FM demonstrator; and  both list CFA24-5 (although they list them as CFA-24-5). slambo 11:28, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Rmeier. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Rmeier~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tourist Railway Association, Inc.

The article Tourist Railway Association, Inc. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "No credible claim to any significance, I cannot find anything besides Wikipedia mirrors online."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rmeier~enwiki


text:
User:QINGCHARLES

I do not exist.

Potential Locations

 * Lou's Cafe
 * Joe Statler Toyota
 * Twin Pines Mall
 * Lone Pine Mall
 * Peabody's Farm
 * Hill Valley High School
 * Doc Brown's Mansion
 * Burger King
 * McFly House
 * Baines House
 * George's House
 * Biff's Grandma's House
 * Delgado Mine
 * Clara's House
 * Doc's Blacksmith Shop
 * Saloon
 * Blast From The Past
 * The mechanic's shop that Biff gets his car fixed at
 * Cafe 80s
 * Cinema
 * Texaco gas station

title: User:QINGCHARLES


text:
Talk:Robert Peel (historian)

Untitled
Is there something missing from the second paragraph? I assume that Peel is "bridging the gap" between Christian Science and traditional Christianity. And the "her" refers to Mary Baker Eddy? --Dablaze 00:26, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

The second paragraph
I commented it out for the time being.

The more I look at it, the more odd it seems, especially from a POV and defensiveness standpoint. For example, why mention Peel's methodology as a researcher, unless his scholarship (or impartiality) is in question? Sourcing is pretty basic stuff for researchers, like knife skills are for chefs. Why even mention it? And if it is important to mention, then the reason for talking about such a normally unremarkable topic should be mentioned as well.

Also, there seems to be a lot of concern about establishing Peel's bona fides as a scholar -- studied with "preeminent" scholar -- was "straightforward and meticulous" -- "drew praise from detractors". Why not just come right out and say that Christian Science was and is met with serious skepticism, and Peel worked very hard to address it while recognizing that despite his own scholarly efforts, his membership in the Christian Science church would be a mark against his mainstream credibility?

Then there's the POV about "misimpressions" and so on. I'd be careful about saying that Peel "corrected" any "misimpressions," but rather "addressed points that most Christian Scientists felt were previously misrepresented." I'm not an expert on Peel, or else I would have done it myself. But I think it's important when talking about religion to be very careful to separate out fact and faith.

--Dablaze 15:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it's entirely viable to the purpose of the entry. Of course anyone sources their points, but he went the triple distance for a subject whose previous biographies had been the subject of strong polemical controversy, and as anyone familiar with the subject knows, it's fair to note that the scholastic world at large recognized these works for that very integrity.  As for your claim that membership in the church is per se a mark against mainstream credibility, that itself smacks of a predjudice element to me.  As to prior misimpressions, they were legion, and thoroughly deconstructed in works whose footnotes almost rivalled the text size itself.

 * I consider it self-evident, as a historian myself, that segregating fact and faith is essential, but I think you could stand to read the works in question first to have some idea of the subject under discussion here. I'd be happy to review for POV again, and if you can make any specific objections (the guy discussed the historical objectivity at great length in his prefaces) that'd be one thing, but you're throwing abstract hypotheticals out at a simple description resting on the facts of the case themselves.  -- Chris Rodgers 08:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but if you'd reread what I wrote above, since a discussion of a scholar's scholastic integrity is unusual (it's assumed that scholars have scholastic integrity!), it might be a good idea to put this entry into context by mentioning what you mentioned above. I'm not disputing the integrity of the works he wrote, but rather the unexplained focus on Peel's scholarly skills instead of a more customary focus on scholarly significance. --Dablaze 14:03, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

COI edit request
Hello. I’m new to Wikipedia and a paid employee of the Church of Christ, Scientist. As such, I will be following COI requirements. My user page says a bit more about myself: FirsthandPOV-CCS. I’ve had close contact with Robert Peel’s work for many years and thus bring potentially useful knowledge of his scholarly work, ecumenical activity, and the positions he held for several decades at the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

I appreciate much of the work that has been done on this article, though I do feel that something of Peel’s standing as a scholar is currently missing here. I would welcome the opportunity to participate in the conversation.

A fuller portrayal of Peel is well conveyed in an article on him by Frederick Newlands Hunter in American National Biography. Wikipedia often includes fair and thoughtful articles on religious scholars. The article on Robert Peel doesn't seem to meet that standard. For comparison of other similarly situated scholars on Wikipedia, see articles on Leonard Arrington and Richard Bushman in relation to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Rufus Jones (Writer) in relation to the Quaker faith, or Abraham Joshua Heschel in relation to Judaism.

I’d like to propose in this initial post adding the following to what's in the lead: Peel’s work as an educator and journalist, specifically his work as an editorial writer for the Christian Science Monitor, and later his service as an editorial counselor (rather than editorial consultant) to the church’s Board of Directors as well as to its Committee on Publication. The suggested description of the work of the Committee on Publication traces to Gillian Gill on page 453 rather than page 581, which does not mention the Committee on Publication. I’m also suggesting a quotation from University of Chicago scholar Martin E. Marty concerning Peel’s biography of Mary Baker Eddy. An example of how these paragraphs could read, with brackets around added text, follows: Robert Peel (May 6, 1909 – January 8, 1992) was [an educator, journalist,] historian, and writer on religious and ecumenical topics.[1] A Christian Scientist for over 70 years, [Peel worked for The Christian Science Monitor as an editorial writer and, later, as an editorial counselor to the] Church of Christ, Scientist’s [Board of Directors and] Committee on Publication.[1] The latter was set up by Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910), the religion’s founder, to [correct misstatements in the press about her church and herself].[2]

Peel is best known for his three-volume biography, Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery (1966), [Mary Baker Eddy:] The Years of Trial (1971), and [Mary Baker Eddy:] The Years of Authority (1977). [Summing up Peel’s biographical trilogy in The New York Times Book Review, Martin E. Marty, who was professor and endowed chair of the University of Chicago Divinity School, noted that Peel “has begun to break the barriers between apologists and critics” of Mary Baker Eddy.][3] References[edit] Note: Included here are only citations for the Introduction. 1. “Robert Peel,” American National Biography online, by Frederick Newlands Hunter: https://doi.org/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0802361. 2. Gillian Gill, Mary Baker Eddy. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group, p. 453. 3. Martin E. Marty, New York Times Book Review, March 12, 1978.

FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I've added to the lead that he was a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor and counsellor for the Committee on Publication. I've added "Mary Baker Eddy" to the latter two book titles in the trilogy. I've also added lower down "begun to break the barriers between apologists and critics", according to a New York Times reviewer; there's no byline on it. SarahSV (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

COI edit request
I sincerely appreciate recent steps that have been taken to improve this article. You seem to care about this work a great deal. I expect you’d agree that it’s good news for Wikipedia readers whenever steps are taken in the direction of upholding the standards of being neutral, verifiable, accurate, and reliable. I believe that the final section still has some distance to go to meet those standards. Much of what is in the section entitled “Reception” was introduced by “user: I have a big foot,” who was suspended for suspected sock puppetry and has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. Due to that fact, the integrity of this section appears to be compromised. Would it be fair to ask whether this section should be retained? If the consensus is that the section is essential, I would like to propose an alternative approach that I believe would provide Wikipedia readers with a balanced look at the issue of critical reception. (One note: The NYT review was verifiably written by Martin E. Marty, as can be confirmed here. Marty’s name appears above a grouping of reviews, including the one quoted here.) The Reception section could open as follows:

Summing up his biographical trilogy of Mary Baker Eddy in the New York Times Book Review, Martin E. Marty, who was professor and endowed chair of the University of Chicago Divinity School, observes that Peel “has begun to break the barriers between apologists and critics.” While Peel’s volumes on Eddy may have begun breaking through those barriers, his subject was too fraught with controversy to receive a unified critical reception. Peel’s objectivity as a church insider writing about Eddy has been called into question by some critics; at the same time, a number of non-Christian Science scholars and reviewers have praised the intellectual rigor and “lack of parti pris interpretation” exhibited in his scholarship [ref: Kirkus Reviews, July 18, 1966: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/robert-peel/mary-baker-eddy-the-years-of-discovery/].

To provide readers with a balanced picture of this topic, in addition to the mostly skeptical quotations currently included, some of the following should be interspersed. (Let me acknowledge the recent expanded quotation from Gillian Gill in this section, which began the process of correcting the imbalance that has been displayed there.) Note: There are additional favorable reviews, which I have not referenced here.

° Stephen Stein, Chancellor’s Professor, Emeritus, in the Department of Religious Studies at Indiana University recognizes Peel as “the most distinguished biographer of Mary Baker Eddy.” [Stephen J. Stein, “‘Retrospection and Introspection’: The Gospel According to Mary Baker Eddy,” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 75, No. 1 (January 1982). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509666?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents]

° Christian Herald editorial consultant and President of the Christian Herald Association, Dr. Daniel A. Poling, noted that “hitherto unavailable material – and a wealth of it – has been drawn upon. There is objective balance with sympathetic insight.” [Daniel A. Poling, “Doctor Poling Looks at Books,” Christian Herald, November 1966.]

° “Yes, this is an insider’s biography,” notes a Christian Century critic, “but Peel is by far the best equipped and most objective historian Christian Science has yet seen. Both the earlier volumes were praised for their literary excellence and accuracy, and we expect a good reception for this one too. …No one who wishes to do justice to her or her church can or will want to work without this.” [“This Week’s Arrivals,” The Christian Century, March 1, 1978, 219]

° “Peel is a painstaking and imaginative scholar whose. . . volumes must,for sheer extensiveness of documented research, take precedence over earlier lives of Mary Baker Eddy.” [Raymond J. Cunningham, The American Historical Review 84, no. 1 (1979): 264-65]

° Peel’s “is an honest and scholarly biography,” Orr Kelly noted in The Evening Star. “One can only wish that all ‘authorized’ biographies were presented with such intellectual honesty.” [Orr Kelly, “Biographer Probes Life of Mrs. Eddy,” The Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), September 3, 1966]

° “Both as biography and as a biography of the founder of Christian Science this is a very fine book.” [J. Stafford Wright, "Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery," Churchman (Summer 1967).]

° “It would be hard to imagine another serious book on this psychologically fascinating theme which would be at once so readable and, both intellectually and morally, so virtuous,” wrote Kathleen Nott in the The Daily Telegraph (London), Oct. 27, 1967.

° “Mr. Peel, who writes from within Christian Science is apparently scrupulously fair in his use of sources, his accounts of healings, his recital of highly controversial events during the formative years, and in his treatment of Mrs. Eddy’s antagonists, of whom there were many.” [William G. Willoughby, “Christian Science Movement Shown,” Progress-Bulletin (Ponoma, Cal.), January 15, 1972.]

° “Peel is a Christian Scientist,” notes book critic Linda Yorton, “and his biography is on the whole admiring, yet it is balanced and scholarly, with the virtue of original research which documents events to get at the truth. ...Peel’s objective account is timely today, when there is much interest in feminist history.” [Linda Yorton, “Finally, an Objective View,” The Evening News (Southbridge, Mass.), January 18, 1978]

° “This 500-page book concludes Robert Peel’s three-volume biography of the founder of Christian Science, surely the definitive work on this colorful religious leader.” [“New Biography Readings,” The AnnistonStar (Anniston, Ala.), December 4, 1977.]

° “Nowhere indulges in special pleading….” [Thomas E. Cooney, “Mary Baker Eddy: The Year of Discovery,” Book-of-the-Month Club News, Midsummer 1966, 10]

FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply (Part I) 17-SEP-2019
Your edit request contains some issues with formatting. In the collapsed section below titled Request edit examples, I have illustrated two: The first shows how the edit request was submitted; the second shows how requests should be submitted in the future.
 * 1) The citation style predominantly used by the Robert Peel article appears to be Citation Style 1. The citation style used in the edit request consists of unformatted bare references. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1.
 * 2) Citation ref tags have not been placed within the requested text indicating which portions of the text these sources are referencing.

INCORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles. Tristan Sjöblad, The Sun, Academic Press, 2018, p. 1. The Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. Paramjit Harinath, Size of the Moon, Science, 51(78):46. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. Shū Uemura, The Sun's Heat, Academic Press, 2018, p. 2. References

(None generated)

In the example above there are three claims made. Each claim has its source reference immediately follow the claim being made. None of the references have been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Robert Peel article. Additionally, ref tags have not been placed within the text at the exact positions where the information they reference resides. Because of this, a reference section is not immediately generated in the text above. The COI editor's current edit request is similarly formatted in this manner, with the unformatted references following the requested claims. Using the correct style and the correct positioning of the ref tags, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following:

CORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin. Which displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]

References

^ Sjöblad, Tristan. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 1. ^ Harinath, Paramjit. , Science, 51(78):46. ^ Uemura, Shū. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.

In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc. Also, the ref tags are placed in the exact location where the text which they reference resides.

As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review. Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example shown in the collapsed section above. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. In the meantime, I offer part II of my review below, where I address the individual reviews proposed to be added to the article.

Reply (Part II) 17-SEP-2019
The reply above addresses the issues of formatting, which are — in their own small way — quite important. However, there are other issues with the proposed content, which I shall address below.

 * Stephen Stein, Chancellor’s Professor, Emeritus, in the Department of Religious Studies at Indiana University recognizes Peel as “the most distinguished biographer of Mary Baker Eddy.” [Stephen J. Stein, “‘Retrospection and Introspection’: The Gospel According to Mary Baker Eddy,” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 75, No. 1 (January 1982). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509666?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents]
 * This review mentions the "distinguished biographer" but says nothing else about that which makes the subject "distinguishable".

 * Christian Herald editorial consultant and President of the Christian Herald Association, Dr. Daniel A. Poling, noted that “hitherto unavailable material – and a wealth of it – has been drawn upon. There is objective balance with sympathetic insight.” [Daniel A. Poling, “Doctor Poling Looks at Books,” Christian Herald, November 1966.]
 * Unfortunately because this was published more than 50 years ago, its views on "hitherto unavailable material" are outdated. Objective balance and sympathetic insights may be lost after 50 years of information which may have been discovered since then.

 * “Yes, this is an insider’s biography,” notes a Christian Century critic, “but Peel is by far the best equipped and most objective historian Christian Science has yet seen. Both the earlier volumes were praised for their literary excellence and accuracy, and we expect a good reception for this one too. …No one who wishes to do justice to her or her church can or will want to work without this.” [“This Week’s Arrivals,” The Christian Century, March 1, 1978, 219]
 * This review appears as if it hasn't yet accounted for other peer reviews at the time (i.e., "earlier volumes were praised for their literary excellence and accuracy, and we expect a good reception for this one too.") This of course does not take into account the intervening 50 years of other reviews. But for what it's worth, this review does state unequivocally that the subject is the "most equipped and most objective", but the term "the most" may or may not apply 40 years later.

 * "Peel is a painstaking and imaginative scholar whose . . . volumes must,for sheer extensiveness of documented research, take precedence over earlier lives of Mary Baker Eddy.” [Raymond J. Cunningham, The American Historical Review 84, no. 1 (1979): 264-65]
 * The ellipses used here is odd, and suggests that a course of action should be to see the entire statement without the redacted information covered by the ellipses.

 * Peel’s “is an honest and scholarly biography,” Orr Kelly noted in The Evening Star. “One can only wish that all ‘authorized’ biographies were presented with such intellectual honesty.” [Orr Kelly, “Biographer Probes Life of Mrs. Eddy,” The Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), September 3, 1966]
 * This review is forthright (if not short) but again, it was written over 50 years ago.

 * "Both as biography and as a biography of the founder of Christian Science this is a very fine book.” [J. Stafford Wright, "Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery," Churchman (Summer 1967).]
 * Again, over 50 years ago and does not elaborate past "very fine book".

 * It would be hard to imagine another serious book on this psychologically fascinating theme which would be at once so readable and, both intellectually and morally, so virtuous,” wrote Kathleen Nott in the The Daily Telegraph (London), Oct. 27, 1967.
 * I doubt Ms. Nott considered the intervening 50 years of books she didn't have access to which may have changed her outlook written at the time in 1967.

 * "Mr. Peel, who writes from within Christian Science is apparently scrupulously fair in his use of sources, his accounts of healings, his recital of highly controversial events during the formative years, and in his treatment of Mrs. Eddy’s antagonists, of whom there were many.” [William G. Willoughby, “Christian Science Movement Shown,” Progress-Bulletin (Ponoma, Cal.), January 15, 1972.]
 * "Apparently scrupulously fair" may have indeed been the case in 1972 (and no one is saying it wouldn't be now) but the time which has passed has not been taken into consideration when this review is accounted for.

 * "Peel is a Christian Scientist," notes book critic Linda Yorton, "and his biography is on the whole admiring, yet it is balanced and scholarly, with the virtue of original research which documents events to get at the truth. ...Peel’s objective account is timely today, when there is much interest in feminist history.” [Linda Yorton, “Finally, an Objective View,” The Evening News (Southbridge, Mass.), January 18, 1978]
 * The observation which Ms. Yorton makes that the "objective account is timely today" is an apt one: is this an objective account which is timely today, in 2019?

 * "This 500-page book concludes Robert Peel’s three-volume biography of the founder of Christian Science, surely the definitive work on this colorful religious leader.” [“New Biography Readings,” The AnnistonStar (Anniston, Ala.), December 4, 1977.]
 * Like Ms. Nott's review earlier, this statement that the work is "definitive" must be weighed against more than 40 years of intervening works.

 * "Nowhere indulges in special pleading…." [Thomas E. Cooney, “Mary Baker Eddy: The Year of Discovery,” Book-of-the-Month Club News, Midsummer 1966, 10]
 * Merely stating what the account doesn't contain only tells half a story.

These are, of course, only my views on these reviews — so I would appreciate hearing other's comments. I'll leave open the template in order to solicit them.

Spintendo 19:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

, when I left a note on your talk page explaining that you could request edits, I should have discussed the limitations of doing so. I apologize for not having done that.

The Christian Science church can't rewrite our articles on Christian Science. Our articles have to be written independently of the church. You're welcome to point out errors if you find any, or anything that's misleading, but please do not suggest lengthy rewrites or additions. Even suggesting sources can be problematic.

It's worth noting that your ellipsis in your summary of Cunningham's review ("Peel is a painstaking and imaginative scholar whose ... volumes must,for sheer extensiveness of documented research, take precedence over earlier lives of Mary Baker Eddy.") skips over two paragraphs, including points such as "his treatment is uncomfortably reverential and, except in minor matters, generally uncritical", and Peel's treatment of a plagiarism issue ("blandly passed over with the startlingly irrelevant observation that the incident serves to show Eddy's occasional published pieces to be fallible").

Finally, because this is a biography and not an article about one of Peel's books, including even more book reviews would not be appropriate, in my view. SarahSV (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: as requested, I've added Martin E. Marty as the New York Times Book Review author. SarahSV (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

FirsthandPOV-CCS, are you able to shed light on the publishing sequence of the trilogy, and what year the Christian Science Publishing Society published each of them? WorldCat is showing inconsistent results. Also, did the Christian Science Publishing Society purchase the copyright from Holt, Rinehart and Winston, or did it already own it? Any pointers would be appreciated. SarahSV (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So as not to confuse the COI editor, my replies above to their request need not be answered, since the issue of placing the reviews was deemed not possible by Sarah — and I defer to her judgement on not using them (and note that I also raised the question of the ellipses as being an "odd" situation — my thanks to Sarah for providing the missing text). With regards to Sarah's current questions, if could kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no when they are ready to answer them, it would be most appreciated. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  20:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, just to let you know that I will be providing requested information on the publishing of the trilogy. FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, I hope this proves to be a useful response to your question. Holt, Rinehart and Winston initially published each of the books. Peel copyrighted all three books at the time of their initial publication. Later, when the books were republished by the Christian Science Publishing Society (CSPS), the copyright at that time was conveyed to CSPS. However, in the United States, this conveyance did not extend beyond the copyright renewal, which reverted to Robert Peel’s estate. CSPS continues to publish and distribute the books through a license arrangement. Years of Discovery copyrighted by Peel in 1966. First published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston in 1966. The Publishing Society first published Years of Discovery in 1972. After reversion, CSPS continued printing under license from 1994 to present.

Years of Trial copyrighted by Peel in 1971. First published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston in 1971. The Publishing Society first published Years of Trial in 1978. After reversion, CSPS continued printing under license from 1999 to present.

Years of Authority copyrighted by Peel in 1977. First published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston in 1977. The Publishing Society first published Years of Authority sometime after 1982. After reversion, CSPS continued printing under license from 2005 to present. FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Sarah and Spintendo, for clarifying several points. It makes perfect sense not to further expand the Reception section, given that this is a biography. However, in regards to your request to point out anything that is misleading, I do feel that the article could be edited to provide Wikipedia readers with a more balanced and accurate picture of how the trilogy was received without adding to the length of the section. I’m not suggesting tilting the section one way or the other, but achieving a balance that would more accurately reflect the trilogy’s overall reception.
 * Also, since this section is about the reception of a series of books published 40 to 50 years ago, most of the reviews naturally come from that time as well.
 * Finally, I noted that under external links, the link to the original version of Robert Peel’s article, “The Christian Science Practitioner,” leads to a “no results found” page. The following url leads to the article:                  https://johnsonfund.org/robert-peel-the-christian-science-practitioner/
 * FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 * With regards to the link to the original version of Robert Peel’s article, “The Christian Science Practitioner,” leads to a “no results found” page the article is archived and the archive link is the one displaying in the article, so no update is needed there. The archived link is superior to the newer link, since placing a newer link will only renew the possibility that this newer link will eventually die itself — whereas the archived link should always work. With regards to the responses to 's questions, I'll leave her to answer those. Regards, Spintendo  21:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FirsthandPOV-CCS, thank you for the information about the publishing history. Spintendo, there is no specific request remaining, so I think it would be reasonable to close this. SarahSV (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thank you for your help! Regards, Spintendo  03:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert Peel (historian)


text:
Nimravidae

Nimravidae is an extinct family of carnivorans, sometimes known as false saber-toothed cats, whose fossils are found in North America and Eurasia. Not considered to belong to the true cats (family Felidae), the nimravids are generally considered closely related and classified as a distinct family in the suborder Feliformia. Fossils have been dated from the Middle Eocene through the Late Miocene epochs (Bartonian through Tortonian stages, 40.4–7.2 million years ago), spanning about.

The barbourofelids, which were formerly classified as a subfamily of the Nimravidae, were reassigned to their own distinct family Barbourofelidae in 2004. However, some recent (2020) studies suggest the barbourofelids are a branch of the nimravids, suggesting that this debate might not be settled yet.

Morphology and evolution
Most nimravids had muscular, low-slung, cat-like bodies, with shorter legs and tails than are typical of cats. Unlike extant Feliformia, the nimravids had a different bone structure in the small bones of the ear. The middle ear of true cats is housed in an external structure called an auditory bulla, which is separated by a septum into two chambers. Nimravid remains show ossified bullae with no septum, or no trace at all of the entire bulla. They are assumed to have had a cartilaginous housing of the ear mechanism. Nimravid feet were short, indicating they walked in a plantigrade or semiplantigrade posture, i.e., on the flat of the feet rather than the toes, like modern cats.

Although some nimravids physically resembled the saber-toothed cats, such as Smilodon, they were not closely related, but evolved a similar form through parallel evolution. They possessed synapomorphies with the barbourofelids in the cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcranium. They also had a downward-projecting flange on the front of the mandible as long as the canine teeth, a feature which also convergently evolved in the saber-toothed sparassodont Thylacosmilus.

The ancestors of nimravids and cats diverged from a common ancestor soon after the Caniformia–Feliformia split, in the middle Eocene about 50 million years ago (Mya), with a minimum constraint of 43 Mya. Recognizable nimravid fossils date from the late Eocene (37 Mya), from the Chadronian White River Formation at Flagstaff Rim, Wyoming, to the late Miocene (5 Mya). Nimravid diversity appears to have peaked about 28 Mya.

A 2021 study has shown that a sizeable number of species developed feline-like morphologies in addition to saber-toothed taxa.

Taxonomy
The family Nimravidae was named by American paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope in 1880, with the type genus as Nimravus. The family was assigned to Fissipedia by Cope (1889); to Caniformia by Flynn and Galiano (1982); to Aeluroidea by Carroll (1988); to Feliformia by Bryant (1991); and to Carnivoramorpha, by Wesley-Hunt and Werdelin (2005).

Nimravids are placed in tribes by some authors to reflect closer relationships between genera within the family. Some nimravids evolved into large, toothed, cat-like forms with massive flattened upper canines and accompanying mandibular flanges. Some had dentition similar to felids, or modern cats, with smaller canines. Others had moderately increased canines in a more intermediate relationship between the saber-toothed cats and felids. The upper canines were not only shorter, but also more conical, than those of the true saber-toothed cats (Machairodontinae). These nimravids are referred to as "false saber-tooths".

Not only did nimravids exhibit diverse dentition, but they also showed the same diversity in size and morphology as cats. Some were leopard-sized, others the size of today's lions and tigers, one had the short face, rounded skull, and smaller canines of the modern cheetah, and one, Nanosmilus, was only the size of a small bobcat.

The Barbourofelids were for a while no longer included in Nimravidae, following elevation to family as sister clade to the true cats (family Felidae). However, several recent studies have returned them to Nimravidae, including as part of Nimravinae.

Phylogeny
The phylogenetic relationships of Nimravidae are shown in the following cladogram:

A 2021 study divides Nimravidae into Hoplophoninae and Nimravinae, the latter including the bulk of species in addition to barbourofelids.

Phylogeny of Nimravidae from the 2022 description of Pangurban:

Natural history

Nimravids appeared in the middle of the Eocene epoch, about 40 Mya, in North America and Asia. The global climate at this time was warm and wet, but was trending cooler and drier toward the late Eocene. The lush forests of the Eocene were transforming to scrub and open woodland. This climatic trend continued in the Oligocene, and nimravids evidently flourished in this environment. North America and Asia were connected and shared much related fauna. Europe in the Oligocene was more of an archipelago than a continent, though some land bridges must have existed, for nimravids also spread there.

In the Miocene, the fossil record suggests that many animals suited for living in forest or woodland were replaced by grazers suited for grassland. This suggests that much of North America and Asia became dominated by savanna. Nimravids disappeared along with the woodlands, but survived in relictual humid forests in Europe to the late Miocene. When conditions ultimately changed there in the late Miocene, the last nimravids disappeared about 9 Mya.

title: Nimravidae


text: File:Echoesboxart (Large).jpg

title: File:Echoesboxart (Large).jpg