Ashley32407

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from .264 warrior magnum. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

6.5 mm Grendel and equivalent cartridges

Greetings! I see there's a bit of a dispute on 6.5 mm Grendel about including a multitude of alternate cartridge forms. The article currently mentions the 264 LBC-AR in the timeline of the cartridge; there really should be a reference for this addition also. However, the wide range of brandings you added have no mention in the text of the article and no source to support the addition.

Accordingly, the addition has been reverted. The "burden of proof," as it were, is on you to explain why they should be included. As you agreed when you submitted the text, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." You'll need to provide reliable sources—and preferably sources independent from the cartridge manufacturers—to support your claim. Without the sources, the text can—and should—be removed.

(There's a secondary issue with your inclusion in the lead being ill-formatted, but that can be addressed once the sourcing is fixed.)

The next step is to present your suggestions at Talk:6.5 mm Grendel. Once the sources are verified and consensus reached about how to word it, then (and only then) should we add the text to the article. I'm watching the page, so I look forward to your comments there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mobile spike

A tag has been placed on Mobile spike requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 7.2 SLEC

The article 7.2 SLEC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I tried but couldn't find a single source for this. Even the Warrior Arms website seems to be down if not gone. No way to verify the cartridge is real, let alone notable. One forum mentioned it, but it was a paste from wikipedia list of cartridges.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 7.8 SLEC

The article 7.8 SLEC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:V; Cannot verify if refs even exist, much less inspect them; one dates to before the design of this bullet. Company webpage no longer exists

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of .264 warrior magnum

The article .264 warrior magnum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, dubious claims and references, see talk for more

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)