Hello, Solidpoint, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Eyrian 23:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Solidpoint, you indicated that you created the images and charts you put at the bottom of the 6.5 Grendel article. Could you perhaps upload larger versions? Those are relatively difficult to read. Thanks for the great work on the article! -- Eyrian 04:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The sentence you added was modified to make is more encyclopedic and placed under the subsection ===Body Armour===. 69.156.78.7 10:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

May I enquire why you would delete the well written cited and inter-wiki linked entry and replace it with the other entry ? Please respond here so we can reach a compromise, rather than having an edit war, thank you. 69.156.78.7 16:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I left you a message at Talk:Dragon Skin body armor. What do you think about the page as it stands now? -- Eyrian 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I've reverted the changes you made to Assault rifle. Please be advised that wikipedia is not an outlet for original research, and all material published must be verifiable, as per WP:V and WP:OR. If you wish to reinsert the material, you must provide reliable sources for the information. Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Thank you, ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I have read carefully the page on No Original Research and my graphic does not violate this. I have literally taken the Hodgdon reloading data, (or in the case of the 6.5 Grendel, Alexander Arms public domain reloading data cited on the 6.5 Grendel page, which AA has guaranteed will not exceed 50,000psi - the same pressure limit I used for Hodgden's loads) the Sierra ballistics data, plugged it into a ballistics calculator, cut and pasted the results into Excel and had it draw the graph.

There is nothing new or novel about the graph or ANY particular item on it and I am not drawing any novel conclusion beyond stating what the graph clearly shows for all to see. Anyone willing to invest a few hours can easily confirm these results as the extended discussion of the procedure and attendant comments on the 65Grendel.com site - which you seem desperate to deny exist - clearly demonstrate. The conclusion that the Grendel outperforms the 6.8 SPC has been made specifically by Stan Christ in the US Army's Infantry Magazine - a very widely published periodical. To quote:

The 6.8x43mm and 6.5x38mm are the most capable upgrades, but they are also the most expensive. The 6.8mm SPC would provide a substantial improvement in close combat capability, which was its stated design purpose. However, the streamlined projectiles fired by the 6.5mm Grendel deliver vastly superior all around performance, combining improved terminal effects with greatly enhanced capability to “reach out and touch someone” at long distance.

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/gunstuff/12_fa02.pdf

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1143&page=1&pp=30

Further, given his long list of published articles on small arms he qualifies as an expert, and thus his vetting of the methodology and results on the 65Grendel.com site constitutes an additional level of endorsement of the method and results. This endorsement is strengthened by it following almost immediately after his published work in Infantry Magazine on the 6.8, 6.5 Grendel and 5.8x42 Chinese round and so all of the facts in question were very fresh in his mind at the time his contributions to my graphic were made.

Further it was Stan who provided the source data from the best available western sources for the characteristics of the Chinese rounds precisely so they could be included in my graph. All of this directly supports the idea that the Grendel is presently the most powerful assault rifle cartridge in the world, not matter how much wishful thinking has been done by the 6.8 SPC crowd in the past.

I reject your assertion that an textual summary of what a graphic shows is new or novel in nature and constitutes Original Research. It is simply supporting in graphic form the conclusions others have reached and widely published over the last 6-8 months.

It looks like the main Grandel image is about to get axed (the one with the round comparison). Since you obviously have access to the physical ammunition, do you think you could take a similar photograph? Thanks! -- Eyrian 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Solidpoint,

I'm taking a look at what's going on at the 6.5 Grendel page. I think if we can get some posts indicating that those individuals are licensing their contributions under the GFDL (preferably editing their posts to say so, if the forum allows it), we'll be in the clear. However, some of the deleted/citation tagged sentences really should be sourced. If you can link something indicating that (preferably from someone who is visibly an expert; I think some of the individuals on http://www.thehighroad.org/ might qualify for WP:RS#Self-published sources, but linking a static site like www.65grendel.com is much better), the tags can be removed.

Since I'm pretty good with wiki policies, I'd be happy to help you work through the red tape. Keep up the good work. -- Eyrian 05:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your kind note; it's been great collaborating with you. I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and the best of luck in all endeavors. -- Eyrian 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Solidpoint! Looking over a lot of wiki articles on various cartridges, I thought it'd be neat to have an infobox to give people a lot of at-a-glance information about the particular round in question. The problem is determining what fields we should have to give a good high-level overview. Since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about this, I'd love it if you could comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force#Firearm cartridge infobox. Thanks a lot! -- Eyrian 23:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you look at Double Tap's 165 gr. .45 ACP loading? 643 ft lbs. out of a 5" barrel non +P load, vs. the 605 ft. lbs. from a 4.5" barrel. Given that we can each come up with loads to best the other, I think the best thing to do is just call it a tie... scot 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I was looking at the Speer presentation for the .45 GAP, which had some interesting graphics concerning various handgun loads, to include .40 S&W, 10mm, .45 ACP, .45 GAP. The loads they showed, their own idea of typical, were all within 10% of each other. Therefore, I concur. They are about even. OT a bit. I also read where one of the gun rags shot the .45 GAP with 6 different loads. Five of the 6 they concluded were uncontrollable. My take on that was that high-pressue loads in large diameter bullets creates so much recoil as to be impossible to control. I concluded, based on these two items, that the true limit on a handgun is the operator's ability to control recoil, so go with the cartridge that gives you the highest round count and add weight to the gun if you feel you need higher energy loads. With all of the new pistols sporting Picatinny chins that is getting pretty easy to do. I'm looking at a combo flashlight and lazer for emergency ID and targeting myself. Trying to find a PX4 in 9mm is almost impossible. I may have to settle for another .40 S&W. Thanks for the cordial discussion. It was a pleasure. -- Solidpoint 06:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, check out tactical light if you're looking into lights; I just expanded that last week. I think the gun mounted light is not really the best choice for a handgun, as you loose the flexibility of being able to target the light and gun independently. I put in some images from the USMC pistol marksmanship manual on shooting with a pistol and flaslight simultaneously, and if you've never tried it before, go pick up a cheap electric airsoft pistol and try it in a dark room. I prefer the cross-wrist hold, with a 1 watt LED light (or bigger) with a pushbutton tail switch. It's very easy to use the light in the left hand to search and locate the target, then bring the gun up in the right hand, lock the wrists together back to back, and fire. Laser sights I've decided are pretty worthless except for very specialized situations. In low light the don't illuminate the target, you just have a red dot in the dark, and a faint line running back to the sight--always struck me as a good "shoot me" sign. In daylight, the dot is washed out enough that it's harder to pick out than the sights. The one case I've seen where the laser was useful was piggybacked on a riflescope, so the laser they acted light a long range flashlight, spreading out to a decent diameter beam at 100 yards. In fact, if you want to experiment, you can get cheap tactical lights and lasers for airsoft pistols, and that also lets you practice things that would be really dangerous with a firearm, like shooting in the dark. scot 15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Reguarding your comments on the .40 S&W +P loading from Buffalo Bore, I decided to work over the overpressure ammunition page and provide some examples of both SAAMI and non-SAAMI +P and +P+ cartridges (+P+ is a non-SAAMI term, but is used by major makers including Federal, though usually only on LEO ammo). I'd like to find more pressure info on the non-SAAMI +P and +P+ loads, but most small manufacturers don't have the ability to pressure test, and even those that do (like Federal, for the +P+ 9mm and .38 Spl.) don't necessarily publish their pressures. Have a look and see what you think. scot 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, let me think a bit and I'll have a stab at putting some burn rate stuff in the overpressure ammo article. Ping me about it in a couple of days if I haven't gotten around to it. scot 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Done, have a look. scot 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Why don't you copy the section to the the article's talk page and have at it, and let's see what we can work out. I've had quite a bit of ballistics experience, to the extent of reverse engineering my own internal and external ballistics simulation software a decade or so back, so I'm not sure I'd agree that I'm out of my depth. The point I'm trying to make is that pressure levels are highly dependent on many, many factors, and velocity or muzzle energy is only very loosely correlated to pressure levels; for example, Federal's +P+ 9mm Hydrashok load generates 1170 fps with a 124 grain bullet, and 6.4 grains of AA#2 will push a 125 grain bullet to 1200 fps in a standard load. Federal's load might run that high pressure because of a greater seating depth required by the bullet length or shape, or maybe it's got a harder crimp, or it uses thicker brass (less case capacity), or a more energetic primer, or maybe Federal beleives that a powder faster than AA#5 produces better results--maybe a lower muzzle pressure and less blast, or greater accuracy, for example. Even looking at the +P+ vs. standard pressure 9mm Federal load, there's only a 50 fps difference. I don't see why Federal would label it as +P+ unless it really was--+P+ will eat a Beretta 92 alive, as the Army proved with that NATO SMG ammo, so you've just eliminated any police departments using the Beretta, assuming they've got a clue. scot 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Saw your Hagermanbot complaint. I might suggest Google Toolbar. Built-in spell checker. Checks my wikiedits nicely just before posting and I don't even have to cut and paste (assuming I click the check button before posting).

I do wonder how the bot would effect your cutting and pasting though. Are you posting, then checking, then correcting? If so, maybe the Preview button would be a better way to go rather then making several posts. No?— Thernlund ^{( Talk | Contribs)} 09:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply

New versions of Firefox will also automatically check spelling. Misspelled words appear underlined in red automatically, just like in a word processor. -- Eyrian 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Good afternoon Solidpoint, I cleaned up a little of your syntax concerning your addition to the foot pound force article. I would expect sooner or later someone is going to yank your ballistics formula. That is because may of the folks around here are obsessed with SI. I am sure you already know this, but just in case you don’t I’ll tell you.

The old classic statement for kinetic energy of ‘half mass times velocity squared” is set to SI (kilograms and meters per second)and is called the joule ( J). That according to Wiki etiquette is the correct ballistics formula.

Greg Glover 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Solidpoint, can you help me with one thing. I started to translate the article about .40S&W into russian(russian wikipedia did not have such article)but I cannot translate "case web". What is it? Sincerely Soviet Russian Kamrad ( talk) 09:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry you've had to wait so long for a reply to your question. I have fallen victim to the futility of trying to get anything intelligent to stay unmolested here at Wiki. A little knowledge is not only dangerous, it seems to be dominant here.

There is a good discussion of web case failures here. In general, the case web is the area from the rim groove forward that is cup-shaped on the inside of the case. This internally tapered structure helps contain the peak pressures of combustion, assuming the back of the case is properly supported by the bolt. -- Solidpoint ( talk) 04:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Solidpoint, I just wanted to ask you a quick question, and alert you to possible plagiarism done by the United States Air Force. I'm both an Administrator on Wikipedia, and an Intelligence Cyber Operations Administrator for the USAF, (NOTE: This correspondence does not officially represent the views of the USAF or any other DOD organization). While looking through some training materials created by the USAF in coordination with the Air University, I realized that a good chunk of the edits (around this time frame) you made to the SOA article had been used in the training materials without following the strict requirements of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. As this is the case I just wanted to ask you if you indeed did create the material entirely by yourself. Not because I doubt that you did, it's just to be sure before I inform my Chain of Command that international law may have been violated. Thank you, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

All of my contributions were the result of solo research I did on behalf of financial industry clients who were interested in SOA implementations. I'm pleased to see they have endured a test of substantial time, as I believe what you can make senior managements understand in a presentation is a good basis for a Wiki contribution. I have no knowledge of the manuals you are referring to, which I believe gets to the point of your question? -- Solidpoint ( talk) 04:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cool, now I'll forward the paperwork... Essentially they need to attribute where they got the content from in the training material, which they hadn't done when they published it, so now that I have your confirmation I'll ensure that they either change the material or attribute the creators and the fact that it came from Wikipedia. I'm really tired right now so I don't know if I'm typing that legibly... my apologies if I'm not. If you have any other questions let me know! Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks Coffee. If you happen to know a counterpart at the USMC research facility in Quantico perhaps I could finally get credit for inventing what the USMC calls Distributed Operations. ;) Seriously, I did a TON of research, head-scratching, and careful thinking through of the implications of Expeditionary Warfare under battlefield conditions MacGregor described so well in Breaking the Phalanx, and posted them the the 65Grendel.com website where I vetted these ideas with a lot of SpecOps types.

Kind of obvious when Sea Viking 2006 concluded they had it wrong, as they didn't foresee Coalesce as the 2nd pillar of DO at all, or at least, as a peer to Disperse. The official USMC publications on DO have at least a dozen direct quotes from my 65Grendel posts. Arrrggghhh!

It's been a pleasure. I had no idea the military had such guardians of original though. Very pleasant surprise! -- Solidpoint ( talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:YoloAirport 2Q3.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 00:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Please be civil. The image hasn't been deleted yet, and I wasn't the one who removed it from the article anyways. All images in Wikipedia require a source. Where does this image come from (i.e. who is the publisher of the map)? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Not everyone in Wikipedia is a pilot obviously. Sources must be verifiable. I looked up the sectional chart article earlier. It also says, "A number of commercial enterprises, notably Jeppesen, produce compatible, certified sectionals." These would not be public domain, so your image description did not provide sufficient information to verify the copyright status or the source of the image. In the future, please include this information in your image uploads so that they will not be nominated for deletion. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

There seems to be a double standard at Wiki. You are required to be an expert, and prove it again, and again, staving off every fool's effort to destroy contributions, but any fool with an over-inflated ego, a Wiki-Eraser, and zero qualifications can come by and flag, delete, or challenge the knowledge of domain experts. You and your "Deletion Posse" have fun. I've wasted far too much of my time already to care whether Wikipedia survives or not. Do the world a huge favor. Delete it all. It's the world's largest experiment to prove, beyond any doubt, the validity of Gresham's Law. -- Solidpoint ( talk) 07:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BilCat. An edit that you recently made to Grumman F-14 Tomcat seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! BilCat ( talk) 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User:BilCat that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC) reply

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/MQ-1-Predator-MQ-9-Reaper.html

Thank you for uploading File:YoloAirport 2Q3.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 03:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:65g 120NFMJ T145 50 B.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jon Kolbert ( talk) 10:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply