| Revision as of 17:21, 23 April 2013 editRgambord (talk | contribs)427 edits →Deleting discussions from talkpage← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:08, 4 May 2013 edit undoRgambord (talk | contribs)427 editsm Rgambord moved page User talk:Rgambord to User talk:Rgambord/adkljsdklsfi: Hiding personally descriptive information in response to harassment and stalking. | ||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for your cleanup of the vandalism at ]. You may find it to your advantage to consider using a semiautomated tool to help revert vandalism (such as ]), or you can request ] for same benefit. Cheers, ] (]) 03:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for July 3== | |||
| Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Steubenville, Ohio edits== | |||
| I had removed the references from this article as they were primary sources and the referenced Atlantic Wire article did a nice job of summarizing the primary sources. I believe usual WP policy is to avoid primary resources as these can be seen as ]. ] (]) 00:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==CheyTac Intervention== | |||
| Hi. I saw you try to condensate the article and make it less add like. Thats fine. By doing so you inadvertently removed references and rather critical information regarding limitations of the CheyTac system. The CheyTac was developed around a custom designed round intended for long range use. The most remarkable part of the system was that a blue tooth hardware/software sensor and fire support package was developed to obtain aiming solutions for extreme ranges. This can only work at its best when detailed information regarding the aero ballistic long range behavior of the employed projectiles is available. So the ABC computer can only function at its best when such Doppler radar obtained data is available. The ABC software does contain selectable projectiles (bullets) for which Doppler radar obtained data is unavailable rendering the ABC less accurate. Since the introduction of the ABC software other vendors started offering (similar) ballistic prediction software also using radar obtained data. I readded ''Without computer support the effectiveness of some long-range shooters could be severely reduced, since they may rely heavily on computer support to obtain correct ballistic solutions.'' That is a mild statement for people who want to believe there is extreme range cold bore hit probability magic in the CeyTac system for sale. Especially past the supersonic reach of a sniper rifle minor errors (error budget) start to add up if one desires to maintain a high hit probability on small target circles.--] (]) 09:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Drafts== | |||
| Sorry - you can do this at ]. ] (]) 17:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks! ] (]) 18:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Social Inequality == | |||
| Thanks for looking into tidying up the recent social inequality edits I made, I appreciate it! | |||
| ] (]) 19:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == RS noticeboard discussion == | |||
| may interest you -- see here . | |||
| == NPOV noticeboard discussion == | |||
| I've started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard on the question of whether it is fair to limit this article to uses of the term "War on women" to attack conservatives/Republicans.] (]) 06:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleting discussions from talkpage == | |||
| Please don't delete (or even archive) active and recent discussions from the talkpage, as it makes it very difficult to follow ongoing conversations. Please see ] which shows the very limited times when material on a talkpage should be deleted. It makes it very difficult to follow conversations and discussions if material is deleted. Archiving is possible but you should get agreement that the topic is over before doing so early. I've restored two of the sections and archived the one about the archiving which, I agree is probably over, since you seem satisfied with the result. ] (]) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't delete it. It's a duplicate section. The material is still there. I'm reverting your reverts. ] (]) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::No the section was not duplicate. You deleted my comments without moving them to the merged section you created. You also know very well that you deleted comments by ] because you dislike to his opinions . "People like you disgust me", that's what you wrote as an explanation why you removed his comments. --] (]) 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh cry me a river. I didn't intentionally do it; I looked and didn't notice any new comments to merge before deleting the duped section, so why don't you go ahead and read WP:AGF again. I didn't delete his comments because I dislike his opinions, I deleted them because they were a clear violation of WP policy. Did you happen to miss WP:BDP? | |||