Talk:ArmaLite AR-50

message: {{tmbox
| type  = notice
| image = 
| text  =  article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
{{#if:Content is first published on their website in 2012, but enters here in 2009 with this edit. The differences here are as important as the similarities - when content starts exactly or very closely the same as an external source and changes to be less like that source, we have a good indicator of copying. When content starts further away and evolves to be more like that source, a backwards copy is more plausible. For instance, note an immediate typo correction and a general cleanup several weeks later. The latter changed such text as "The weapons receiver is beaded to the stock while the barrel is left to free float, The weapon's stock is made of aluminum as well." into "The receiver is bedded to the V-shaped stock while the barrel is free floated. The three piece AR-50 stock is constructed from aluminum and features an extruded forend, machined skeleton butt stock with removable and vertically adjustable butt plate." This brings the content substantially closer to the external source. The IP who did the cleanup then made a smaller adjustment () that again modified the content to be more like the external source. We have variation in date of publication and signs of natural evolution that combine to make this very likely a backwards copy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

message: This article seems to have the more correct name, according to the manufacturer's website. Mark Hurd 2 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
The correct name is ArmaLite AR50-A1, but to signify the latest interation fo the rifle, it has been updated to a AR50-A1B. But the "B" doesn't need to be in the title. JohnC76 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Armalite AR50]] into here 

message: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --JohnC76 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --JohnC76 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --JohnC76 (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: What exactly was copyright issues with the last edit. I rewrote the last entry in my own words. It was not the same as the copyvio flagged content at all. It was simply facts in my words that I know if this rifle. PLEASE EXPLAIN!!!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC76 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY IS IT COPYVIO AGAIN???????? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Armalite AR-50. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127203914/http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=50A1B-416&ReturnUrl=Categories.aspx?Category=0406c9ff-539d-4b4c-ae1f-d045b91324c3 to http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=50A1B-416&ReturnUrl=Categories.aspx?Category=0406c9ff-539d-4b4c-ae1f-d045b91324c3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225040913/http://www.armalite.com:80/Categories.aspx?Category=0406c9ff-539d-4b4c-ae1f-d045b91324c3 to http://www.armalite.com/Categories.aspx?Category=0406c9ff-539d-4b4c-ae1f-d045b91324c3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has too much unsourced material. Much of it was added originally by an editor who was later banned for repeatedly adding large amounts of unsourced material, often in the form of original research, . Once I realized that background I removed the edits he made, a process that took a little time because of edits by others. However the material was restored, and some intervening edits removed., by . I'm not sure if that was his intent, or if he did it by accident because he was working from a different version. Regardless, the article is poorly sourced and the "Design" section in particular needs citations for verification. Felsic2 (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As I thought, the restoration was a mistake. I've re-fxed it, with JohnC76's intended additions. Felsic2 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive unsourced material