User talk:Ana Nim

Exurb v. suburb

How do you determine that a town is too far from NYC to be considered a subburb? Do you live in NYC? Do you live in Mahopac NY? I do and I also work in NYC. It is indeed a subburb.

- Read the definition of "suburb." Mahopac is not on the outskirts of NYC. --Ana Nim 13:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

5.56

Well, to be fair, "5.56x45mm NATO", while not correct, is quite common. A comparison with a Google search for each gives a result count 3:1 in favor of "5.56mm NATO", but certainly the 12k mentions of "5.56x45mm NATO" indicate a significant common usage, not just "a couple of contributors". On the other hand, the defenders of "5.56x45mm NATO" refer to the WP:MILHIST#MOS, which appears mute on the point of cartridge naming conventions. Another consideration is the fact that at least one of the users in the conversation is from New Zealand, as I recall, and the NZ military may in fact designate the round as "5.56x45mm NATO"--certainly I could see the US calling it that, to differentiate M193 and M855, for example. I think what's needed here are some solid references. I took a quick look on the NATO standards website, and I didn't see any promising looking small arms stuff there; do you have any links to authoritative sources, or STANAG specification document numbers? scot (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am checking for the text of STANAG 4712 and will follow-up.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Little help?

User:Michael Courtney has been splashing Hydrostatic shock references on popular articles. Could you please join the discussion on the notability of including this entry on cartridge pages? Thanks for the help. For the record, I'm asking a few others with a vested interest. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yesterday I added "fact" tags to Mr. Courtney's revisions on the .40 S&W and 9x19mm pages. He added citations to his paper, which I read. I also read the discussion on the 10mm talk page. I am undecided as to whether he has a valid point. Not that I necessarily agree with his thesis, but if his point is that 10mm Auto performance reaches a threshold that peer reviewed studies show hydrostatic shock effects to be significant, then a comment to that effect would seem to belong in the article. I don't think it would be encyclopedic to add a note about HS in cartridge articles where HS is not significant.--Ana Nim (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Lalor photo

Hi Ana,

The previous photo from Lalor's media kit was recommended for deletion by and then deleted per Wikipedia:Publicity photos. I would agree that media kit photos are free, but the policy being enforced by those watching the article is if any free equivalent is available, that must be used. MrPrada (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• If that is the way the policy is being implemented, it is a display of incredible stupidity. It cannot even be attributed to an unreasonably rigid application of a policy, which I see all too often here. The policy plainly allows such photos to be used. The photos are there for public use with no copyright restrictions.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but some people enforce it as "No publicity photo can be used if there is any chance of a free equivalent". I see you just uploaded an untagged Lalor photo, check out the tag at [[Image:2008paterson and obyrne.jpg]], that would probably suffice for it. If it isn't tagged properly, it will be deleted by the ImageRemovalBot. MrPrada (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That photo is mine, and thus there are no copyright images since I give permission for its use. I could use some help with tagging it to make that clear.--Ana Nim (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clip vs. Magazine

I was wondering if you could chime in on the debate regarding the definition of a clip vs. a Magazine. I am looking for other firearms folks. The view at issue is that Clips are Magazines and the two editors for changing this are citing the dictionary. Don't know what your position is, but thanks for your help in advance. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pistol cartridge Pmax

The information source is C.I.P.. If you download the C.I.P. decisions, texts and tables (free current C.I.P. CD-ROM version download (100+ MB in ZIP and RAR format)) you can look up a vast amount of legal and technical information and technical drawings regarding ammunition and firearms in English, French or German. Under "Tables" you find, amongst other data, Pmax data for almost every commercially produced cartridge. In C.I.P. member states (like the UK) this data is used as the only applicable legal standard. C.I.P. uses the metric system to express quantities. For pressure you have to know 10 bar = 1 MPa, so 3250 bar = 325.00 MPa.

Please note that the C.I.P. technical drawings are copyrighted, so please do not copy and paste them into Wikipedia. There are also relations between C.I.P. and NATO EPVAT testing standards. NATO obviously chose to ignore SAAMI standards.

The American equivalent of C.I.P. is the SAAMI although operating differently. SAAMI is a manufacturer's association. In contrast to C.I.P.’s decisions the recommendations of SAAMI have not the force of law. These two main ammunition standards organisations are cooperating in an effort to unify their rules, though there are still hard at work to solve differences between their rules. These differences consist of varying chamber dimensions and maximum allowed chamber pressures. There are also technical variations in the way chamber pressures are measured giving different results.

If you are aware where SAAMI publishes its data on the internet that information would be great for Wikipedia. As long as SAAMI data can not be directly accessed from the SAAMI website itself, I personally tend to question SAAMI data cited somewhat, since the cited SAAMI data on Wikipedia comes from third party sources.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

SAAMI pressure specs are reprinted in widely available sources such as reloading manuals which are published by SAAMI members. As such, the figures are not really third-party sources. And just because they are contained in books and not via a clickable link does not mean they are not validly sourced. American manufactured ammunition, which is by far the bulk of 10mm Auto ammunition produced, is made to SAAMI spec and not CIP spec, which makes the entry of CIP data in that article somewhat specious.--Ana Nim (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I said just as much in answer to the same question on my talk page if you want to take a look, AN. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I know some SAAMI members print fine reloading handbooks that I regard as thrust worthy. Sadly as far as I know the SAAMI data can not be accessed via the www for free. Regarding source citation, I already mentioned C.I.P. as source in the 9x19mm Parabellum article. If you prefer to use SAAMI pressure specs regarding US designed cartridges and refer to the handbooks used that is ok. Maybe problems will arise with cartridges that are in use world wide like the American .30-06 Springfield or German 9x19mm Parabellum. The possibility of a double dataset would be appropriate to tackle such situations, until SAAMI and C.I.P. agree on common standards.

Fortunately C.I.P. proofs every arm with considerable overpressure, so 5 to 10 % pressure differences (such pressure standards differences are actually rare) will not cause a real dangerous situation when US made SAAMI spec ammunition is used. Another area where C.I.P. and SAAMI sometimes deviate is cartridge and chamber dimensions (see Delta L problem article). This can sometimes cause annoying feeding surprises in real life. These problems are normally not of a dangerous nature except for irresponsible dangerous game hunters.

Remind SAAMI and C.I.P. work for only 300.000.000 and 500.000.000 people, so even if they introduced common standards there still is a lot of world to standardize left.--Francis Flinch (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)