User talk:Ranp

As an FYI, it's generally considered good form to paste on the Talk Page any text removed from the article—not that I've always done this myself, but it is courteous. The Jade Knight 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

The Writings of John Clement

Clement's books are important in an article on ARMA specifically because ARMA's entire pedagogy is derived from said books. Were the current director of the CIA (interesting choice of person) to write a book that purports to insist on the one true way of spying, his book would be very important to anyone who wanted to understand the CIA--unless it were demonstrable that the book were written as an intentionally misleading text. Of course, in that case, it would still be important to consider in regards to the CIA. Now, were Clement to have retired from ARMA and passed its practices on to complete control of other people, his books would be of less immediate import in an ARMA article. However, since he still controls the organization, his books remain the most complete and accessible summary-in-one-locale of what is most likely the foundations of ARMA pedagogy and interpretation.Dogface 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Personal Review

Hello! As an interested and a knowledgeable individual (ARMA experience and associated knowledge is a Good Thing), I would like to request your assistance in reviewing and editing the Waster article. Serious deep edits are not necessary, but are welcome, as is any form of review. Please leave any comments (if you do not want to make the edits yourself) on the Waster talk page under a new subheading. Thank you! -- Xiliquiern 16:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M2 video ignorance

Not at all in fact if you’ would have watched the video then you would have seen that at least 3 of the bullets are split clearly in half with the remainder of the bullets shattering into fragments, this is far better than any other metallic object would do, especially considering the fact that the muscle velocity of the M2 machine gun is 3,050 feet per sec in other words close to one kilometer per second other objects including WW2 tanks have had holes punched through them by the same weapon, and no single infantry armor including type IV is rated to withstand a M2 shot. The total force of the impact should come at 13,000 foot-pound force, the sword’s durability is all the more surprising considering the fact it is repeatedly struck in the same area but withstands it untull it’s hamon is shatered. Well above any average piece of metal would have withstood. 68.211.220.26 17:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a vetern who has wasted lots of ammor with a M2 machine gun, which I love, I can assure you that it is not a tank killer. The US Sherman tank had a hard time shooting through the armour of German tanks with its main gun!

None of the bullets in the video were split, they busted part after glancing the blade. Did you notice that each time a bullet glanced the blade that it resulted in a piece of the blade being knocked out! Did you notice that when a bullet did hit dead on that it did not split, rather it snaped the blade in half! Regardless of what they may claim I'm guessing that they are also shooting ball ammo (the video is too painful to watch to go back and see). It is just totally silly to claim that the katana can splitting MGB .50 bullets. I suggest watching less Anime on TV.Ranp 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you clearly did not watch the videos and are comenting on what you never saw, to help you ive dredged out some clear frames. I sugenst next time you watch the video in question before making inacurate statements. Wasteofhumanlife (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that someone else has also been watching too much Anime. You guys are so silly.Ranp (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother with the Fanbrat. I'm an anime fan, yet I don't belive that the Katana can split bullets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.123.147 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARMA Page - Rapier Cuts

I believe I know your source for the rapier cutting "not lethal" statement, as well as your reason (and unfortunate inability) to cite it - hopefully, if my thinking is correct, the scholarly work in question will be published in short order. My question and reason for posting here, however, is to ask: should this phrase:

ARMA's position on the relative ineffective killing power of rapier cuts is partially based upon the fact that there is not a single historical record of anyone ever being killed by rapier cut!

be changed from 'rapier' cut to 'true rapier' cut? After all, a great many people still consider the sidesword/cut and thrust sword the rapier, and from my knowledge, those could be effective cutting weapons. Again, this knowledge may be incorrect, which is why I ask you here. Tightening up the wording may make this situation a little easier to reconcile. If you would, you can respond here, or on my own talk page. I watch both. Thank you again for your time and dedication! - xiliquiern^talk 16:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing that citation - sorry we bumped heads a little on its use in the article. Now, however, with the addition of your quote, I believe we can call that one finalized. Again, I apologize for what must appear to be thick-headedness. Thank you again for the time you took (and the extra time I cost you). - xiliquiern^talk 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longsword

Hello again. I recently made a rather significant edit to the longsword article and, as a knowledgeable member, I would request you look it over and, if you have time, continue its growth. Thanks! - xiliquiern ^Talk 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited Criticism Removal Proposal

I have made a proposal for the removal of uncited criticism from the ARMA page. Please share your thoughts on the subject. -xiliquiern ^Talk 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARMA

This is a head's up that some anonymous user is trying to make changes to the criticism section of the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts article, using Amazon reviews as sources, and generally reverting many of the improvements that were made to the article recently. This user has not discussed any of these changes on the talk page. The Jade Knight 18:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments

On talk pages, please try to not slice up others' comments by inserting your own half-way through—it can be difficult for others to sort out who is saying what. Just go ahead and append your comments directly after the end of the entire block of what you are responding to (ie, after their sig). The Jade Knight 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing German School of Fencing

Hello, it is not my intention to change all of your edits. Simply put I should go through the article and make the changes I'd like. Instead I've simply edited the things brought to my attention by being on my watchlist page. It is not a disrespect. I think your description of schiel is technically correct and readable but covers only a limited portion of the whole, i.e good with room for improvement (and I felt the same about my version). Part of the difficulty for me is that my school has most of the reference material I use, so it's harder for me to demonstrate and cite the changes I'd make, as I don't have them by my computer. Mercutio.Wilder 23:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Wasteofhumanlife (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Floryshe

An editor has nominated Floryshe, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floryshe and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Who?" Template

The {{who}} template should be used when a generic claim is made using a generic noun without stating who made the claim. For example, expressions like "Some say..." or "People have claimed..." or "Experts agree..." all make a claim and attribute to someone, but are not specific in who is actually making the claim. In these contexts, the {{who}} template it helpful to request that whoever is making the claim is specified. It is not meant to be used for specifics in other contexts; I would warrant that the reason why is because if any claim is being made reliably, then it is always possible to specify who made the claim. However, it is quite common to have a reliable source which does not specify individuals. Consider, for example, this source, which states that people died (and mentions roughly how many), but does not seem to feel the need to specify individual names; indeed it would be quite unusual for individual names to be specific when more than 2-3 individuals were affected by an event. The Jade Knight (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]