Talk:Point shooting

message: Archived content may be found at Talk:Point shooting/Archive 1.  If there's any discussion anyone want's to pull back to this page, edit that page, select and copy the relevant text, and drop it into this page.  scot 03:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived discussion

message: The user "Linas" put the article into the "guns" category, and I wondering if the article can be placed in multiple categories, so that we can also put it under "firearms" (which appears to be a separate category).
:Yes, mulitple categories are fine.  Might also fit under "martial arts", and there may be others.  scot 15:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: I have removed the Youtube videos and "bibliography" posted by Mr. Veit ("5shot").  Once again, and as stated before, Wikipedia is not a place for personal promotion.  A brief description of "point and shoot", which already exists, is sufficient.  The "point and shoot" material, which is nothing more than a footnote in the realm of pointshooting, should not dominate the article in terms of size.  Roundeyesamurai 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: The methodology established by Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate (abbreviated FSA or sometimes arranged FAS)...
::::...and add a footnote after each abbreviation providing a suitable reference?  I think that would address all three concerns--desire for the information to be included, desire for references, and desire for a better flow of text.  scot 14:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. This is the most obvious (and least sociopathic) solution. Chris Cunningham 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate

message: 1/24/09
I recently added some historical info as to Point Shooting and its early use: The documentation in support of the entries can be found at www.pointshooting.com/1835.htm and www.pointshooting.com/1911.htm
They provide a factual basis for the historical info provided.
I also read above that the page controller or editor in cheif may be interest in verification of Walter J. Dorfner's paper and publication. I have a copy of Walter's original paper and I made the digest of it that has been published.
The digest is available on my site www.pointshooting.com/pands.htm Walter said that he had it published in the VSP magazine and I had it published as well. 
All the material on my site is open source material, written by experts and/or approved of by those experts, or stuff written by me based on my investigation and experimentation. There also are pics and videos to back up what is said.
Though I do not think that I should have to do anything more than anyone else to "be heard," if you are an editor or controller of this page, and you want me to send you a scanned page or two of an article that I have had published in paper form and as mentioned in my bio info on my site, send me an e-mail : okjoe at aol dot com, and I will try to do that. My bio info is linked to near the bottom of my site.
Best regards,
John Veit  
5shot (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added historical info 

message: I proposed a new article on AIMED Point Shooting or P&S, which was not accepted.
I asked that it be reconsidered for acceptance, and received this response:
You should raise your concerns (in more compact manner and possibly one by one to avoid tl;dr issues) on the talk:point shooting page, as this is the general topic of your draft. Effectively all your concerns can be addressed by editing the point shooting article, so there is simply no need in separate article on topic. P.S.: please, keep the discussion in one central place. Just use  template to inform other discussion participants of your comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A separate page for Info on P&S or inclusion of more specifics on it and other point shooting methods which could get out of hand. 

message: 5shot (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Declined submission [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aimed Point Shooting or P&S]]

message: John, there is no need at all to copy-paste the entire declined article here, when you can just type Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aimed Point Shooting or P&S and anyone who wants to see it can click there. Accordingly I've added the link, and removed the text, as it was taking up the vast majority of this page.
Your manual merge of this data has been quite problematic, and has really cluttered up this article, which was already not in the best of shape. You really need to read up on the basics of Wikipedia editing, as the vast majority of the information you've added is simply not how things are written or presented on Wikipedia. I'm taking a look at the extensive amount of work it would take me to get it close to Wikipedia-appropriate phrasing, citation format, etc. I ended up deciding that the article should just be reverted to the June 2012 version of the article. It simply isn't fair to drop in massive amounts of material that just isn't properly prepared, and leave it for other people to shape the peg to fit into the hole.
It's not that you don't have some useful material, but the presentation has not even slightly taken into account Wikipedia's WP:Manual of style, proper use of WP:Tone, etc. It's basically just written as though this were part of your personal website and there were no formats or guidelines to follow. As just one of many examples, how does a section title "C-A-U-T-I-O-N" even remotely resemble the writing style of anywhere else on Wikipedia?
I understand, from your above posts, that you may be considered among the experts in writing on this field, however in the same way as any book or magazine publisher has particular editorial methods used internally, so does Wikipedia, and your current edits simply aren't conforming with those.
Accordingly I'm reverting back to the version predating your July 2012 merge. I'll post some further suggestions on your Talk page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed huge copy-paste of declined article, reverting additions

message: The operator is clearly looking through the eotech sight and placing the reticule on the target before pulling the trigger. That is aimed quick fire on the move, not any variation of point shooting. AFAIK, point shooting is no longer taught or is needed, since the advent of modern optics. cӨde1+6TP  12:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Reflexive fire' pic is not 'reflexive'