User talk:Modern Firearms Expert

Vandalism Warning #2

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Binary Trigger, you may be blocked from editing. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must be mistaken. It is not vandalism to tell the truth. Your rendition negated to note that the term "Binary" is trademarked in this context and the product is patented. Nothing I edited was false. Further, your narrative conveyed implicit bias on a lawful product.

Lastly, you have invoked the wrong procedure. From the guidelines: "Content disputes are not vandalism. They should be dealt with by following the dispute resolution procedure."

Respectfully..... 2600:1010:B32F:1531:0:2B:EDA5:CA01 (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked temporarily from editing from certain pages (Binary trigger) for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Modern Firearms Expert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Good afternoon Black Kite. There have been many misguided and deceptive comments made about the Franklin Armory trademarked product, the Binary Trigger. Irruptive Creditor has repeatedly (including this afternoon) falsified information about the Binary Trigger.

First, the Binary Trigger does not increase the rate of fire.
Second, the Binary Trigger is a trademarked product like "Kleenex." It is NOT a general term like "tissue." I provided a link to the USPTO live registration of the mark. If Wikipedia is unwilling to note the registration and attribution of the mark, they are effectively contributing to infringement. Shouldn't we avoid that possibility?
Third, the author was wrong in indicating that the Binary Trigger is only available as a modification. It is available in several OEM product-lines.
Fourth, the author is attempting to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the legality of the product by claiming that the legal opinion can be "modified or revoked at any subsequent time." That pejorative statement is belied by the open letters where ATF has disclaimed any regulatory involvement over Binary Triggers.
And finally, the author conflates Binary Triggers with Bumpstocks in the closing paragraph. They are completely different products, and the popularity of the product has grown exponentially since 2015 when the product was launched.

In closing, I would be happy to work with the community to work together to produce a balanced document. Simply reverting to the narrative produced by Irruptive Creditor lacks credibility. Is there a way that the section may be rewritten collaboratively and then reviewed by you?

Decline reason:

You are blocked only from the article page; you make discuss all of this on Talk:Binary trigger. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Modern Firearms Expert (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]