Talk:Terminal ballistics

message: The statement in the article
:The simplest maximum disruption bullet is one with a wide, flat tip.
Is seemingly self evident and logical however Sanow and Marshall did not see any signficant difference between semi-wadcutter and round-nosed bullets according to Chuck Hawks. http://www.chuckhawks.com/beginners_stopping_power.htm Halconen (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flat point bullets 

message: seems irrelevant to "the study of the behavior and effects of a projectile when it hits its target."
It is also duplicated (often word for word) on other ballistics related pages.207.191.12.134 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  section on large caliber 

message: The large caliber section is about military cannon and has no purpose being here.
The same is true of hypervelocity, which is a range of research primarily related to space travel.
Both sections should be removed from here, possibly moved to relevant pages elsewhere or standalone. Digitallymade (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your recent edits. Please recall that this is an encyclopedia and not a blog. Stick to incorporating important scientific fact(s) from Reliable (secondary) Sources (preferably scholarly ones) see WP:RS,WP:NPOV. Inlinetext (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of my recent 1100 edits do you disagree with?  I don't make suggestions EXCEPT to correct errors. Sourcing of references is always a problem.  Sometimes the only ones that have SOME credible information are ones that some people don't like.  I don't like political and commercial bias.  My prime source on Terminal Ballistics is the FBI.  They have stated that almost everything out in the wild is based on myth and wishful thinking. Do you disagree with the FBI's recent report which resulted from 2 years of research on MODERN technology?  Digitallymade (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear to me under which names / IPs you previously edited this article to make 1100 edits. Wikipedia is an international project, so yes I could disagree with sourcing this article to one USA source from the FBI which does not appear to be cited in this article. I would again suggest that you begin citing reliable sources. Since you raised the number of your edits, and after review, I am also concerned that you may have a WP:COI concerning guns and ammo which is reflected in your choice of sources. There is nothing really new in the science of wound ballistics which has not been known for 70 years. Inlinetext (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1100 edits were not to this page. You object to something, I know not what as you weren't specific. I'm not a mind reader so your general statement has no value to me. Digitallymade (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I misunderstood you to be the author of this original essay. Inlinetext (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Accepted. I do not care for this page.  Before I edited the top section it was even worse than it is now.  I see no reason for this page to exist in it's form.   There is no purpose and it's nothing but a bunch of irrelevant facts that no one is going to read.  In that respect, I'm happy because no one is going to read this. The page and  the topic have NO importance. There needs to be a rational, an explanation for why this topic is supposed to be important.  There is not.Digitallymade (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am trimming this article, but retaining the heavy calibre section (for now) since this page refers to "projectiles" (not bullets). Eventually I foresee a Merge with Stopping Power after both articles are trimmed. Since my field is intercontinental ballistics I would appreciate your expertise on the small calibre stuff. Inlinetext (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Please don't merge with stopping power , that page contains way too many could's and might's to be in an encyclopedia.207.191.12.134 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic sections are unneeded and belong elsewhere 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Terminal ballistics. 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/20050326052053/http://pegasus.me.jhu.edu/~molinari/Projects/Shape/SLIDE-1.html to http://pegasus.me.jhu.edu/~molinari/Projects/Shape/SLIDE-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified