![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
It is very clear that Republic of Kosovo's police force uses the Glock 17 & Glock 19 as I have shown in a video and photos also the official website. But people like User talk:Koalorka who bring political and nationalistic propaganda are ruing the article by stupid remarks that Kosova is not a country. That is a whole different topic and has nothing to do with this, and maybe he should complain to the 50+ countries that recognize Kosova as a state. 82.35.32.75 ( talk) 18:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this is a rather dumb edit war. Kosovo's status is not appropriate for fighting over here. I have full protected the page for 3 days.
While it's protected, parties who have been edit warring are asked to go find examples of where Kosovo is or isn't excluded from other national user / membership type lists elsewhere in Wikipedia, to determine if there's a larger community consensus. Please post the results of that survey here to justify your positions... Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 05:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and raised this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Kosovo in lists of countries. — Mudwater ( Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Washington DC MPD (Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department) are issued the Glock 17 (and 19). The Glock 26 may be used for concealable off-duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.216.88 ( talk) 06:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
(this is in reference to this diff: [ [1]]) according to http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html, "The Glock 18 selective-fire automatic pistol was developed from the Glock 17" but "the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." this does not seem like a 'minor sub variant' to me. Theserialcomma ( talk) 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
the first sentence of the lede currently states "Glock is the name of a family of semi-automatic pistols designed and produced by the Austrian company Glock GmbH." Now, isn't the glock 18 designed and produced by Glock? Yes, it is. Isn't it selective fire? Yes, it is. So if Glock designed and produces a pistol that is selective fire -- which is a fact --, wouldn't it be inaccurate to only mention their semi automatic pistols? Just because someone thinks the glock 18 is only popular due to video games, or it's not widely available to the public, or it shoots inaccurately, or it's 'basically a glock 17', or it's too expensive, or whatever other original research and opinions someone can come up with, this is still Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules. One of the fundamental rules involves proper sourcing and verifiability through third party sources. Right now, none of the objections presented as to why it should not be mentioned in the lede have been valid. someone mentioned that Janes might not be a reliable source, for example. if Janes truly isn't a reliable source, then it should not be used, and that would be valid grounds for removal. But janes appears to be a reliable source to me, as it's used in hundreds of other wikipedia articles as a source, including many articles on guns. for example [ [2]] [ [3]][ [4]] handgun: [ [5]] [ [6]] [ [7]] submachine gun: [ [8]] [ [9]]. so please clarify your argument into something that is acceptable for wikipedia's standards, as i don't want to edit war. "i don't like it," "i think it's a trivial product," or "i know that it's too similar to a glock 17 to be considered distinct" without proper sourcing is not acceptable. thanks. Theserialcomma ( talk) 09:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with Koalorka and Mudwater. The G18 is almost insignificant when compared to the other models, and doesn't warrant making the lead section so confusing to the average reader. — Dan MP5 16:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
it's irrelevant to me if you are a 'heavy hitter' on this article, a complete newbie, or a flying unicorn made out of magical puppy kisses. the relevant aspect to wikipedia is not the editor's 'heavy hitting' dedication to the topic, but the sources involved, verifiability, and consensus. because there is no consensus to make the changes i am proposing, then the changes will not be made. that is the only result that is relevant to wikipedia's policies, and i won't try to make amendments against consensus. that is why i came to the talk page, to discuss. i suggest all "heavy hitters" and those who use the "heavy hitter" fallacy to read WP:OWN. Theserialcomma ( talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
nukes, you removed a sourced sentence to revert to no source at all. you are the one who is edit warring. the so-called reliable source that you claim counters jane's (but you did not actually provide in the article) is 1. probably not a reliable source, as 'cybershooters.org deactivated gun collector's association' does not appear to have the editorial oversight and reputation of jane's. just compare the amount of times janes is cited on wikipedia to cybershooters.org: janes.com is cited 21265 times according to [ [10]], whereas cybershooters.org is cited on wikipedia 2 times. [ [11]]. In short, do not remove reliably referenced sentences unless you have a new and better source, actually provide it, and justify why you believe it to be a better source. please see WP:RS. also, you may ask the reliable source notice board if cybershooters.org (or, in this case, no source at all) is acceptable to replace janes.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. you might not like their answer, though. Theserialcomma ( talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
i really have no idea what you are having a meltdown over. i am just looking for the article to have reliable sources for its claims, and that the claims are accurately buttressed by the source. that's all. Theserialcomma ( talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 05:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
relax, guy. the article's talk page is meant to be used for discussing the article and how to make it better. neither your poetry nor your rants help the article, but some reliable sources about glocks would. this isn't a message board or a chatroom. Theserialcomma ( talk) 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
i'm not sure what your recent rant has to do with making the article better, but i propose using janes.com as a reliable source, and accurately stating what is written there. the gun collector's club website doesn't appear to be as reliable, so as to trump janes.com, but that might be a better call for the reliable sources board. Theserialcomma ( talk) 06:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
your continued personal attacks and incivility are going to get you nowhere. i suggest you start talking about, oh, i don't know, glock pistols? hey, what an awesome idea. Theserialcomma ( talk) 06:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you're hounding me, I'll turn and fight. Over 7,500 agencies use the Glock. [12] That includes 70% of the law enforcement agencies in the United States. [13] [14] A paragraph and reference for each and every agency is impossible. Whenever the list gets out of hand, it is the job of us RESPONSIBLE editors to cull the list and not waste our time hounding other editors. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have full protected (admins only edit) for 3 days due to ongoing multiparty edit warring.
I am also warning all the edit warriors, publically here and on your talk pages - this is not acceptable, stop it. This has violated edit warring policy, no personal attacks policy, and our civility policy. If this continues accounts will be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
It is very clear that Republic of Kosovo's police force uses the Glock 17 & Glock 19 as I have shown in a video and photos also the official website. But people like User talk:Koalorka who bring political and nationalistic propaganda are ruing the article by stupid remarks that Kosova is not a country. That is a whole different topic and has nothing to do with this, and maybe he should complain to the 50+ countries that recognize Kosova as a state. 82.35.32.75 ( talk) 18:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this is a rather dumb edit war. Kosovo's status is not appropriate for fighting over here. I have full protected the page for 3 days.
While it's protected, parties who have been edit warring are asked to go find examples of where Kosovo is or isn't excluded from other national user / membership type lists elsewhere in Wikipedia, to determine if there's a larger community consensus. Please post the results of that survey here to justify your positions... Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 05:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and raised this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Kosovo in lists of countries. — Mudwater ( Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Washington DC MPD (Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department) are issued the Glock 17 (and 19). The Glock 26 may be used for concealable off-duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.216.88 ( talk) 06:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
(this is in reference to this diff: [ [1]]) according to http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html, "The Glock 18 selective-fire automatic pistol was developed from the Glock 17" but "the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." this does not seem like a 'minor sub variant' to me. Theserialcomma ( talk) 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
the first sentence of the lede currently states "Glock is the name of a family of semi-automatic pistols designed and produced by the Austrian company Glock GmbH." Now, isn't the glock 18 designed and produced by Glock? Yes, it is. Isn't it selective fire? Yes, it is. So if Glock designed and produces a pistol that is selective fire -- which is a fact --, wouldn't it be inaccurate to only mention their semi automatic pistols? Just because someone thinks the glock 18 is only popular due to video games, or it's not widely available to the public, or it shoots inaccurately, or it's 'basically a glock 17', or it's too expensive, or whatever other original research and opinions someone can come up with, this is still Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules. One of the fundamental rules involves proper sourcing and verifiability through third party sources. Right now, none of the objections presented as to why it should not be mentioned in the lede have been valid. someone mentioned that Janes might not be a reliable source, for example. if Janes truly isn't a reliable source, then it should not be used, and that would be valid grounds for removal. But janes appears to be a reliable source to me, as it's used in hundreds of other wikipedia articles as a source, including many articles on guns. for example [ [2]] [ [3]][ [4]] handgun: [ [5]] [ [6]] [ [7]] submachine gun: [ [8]] [ [9]]. so please clarify your argument into something that is acceptable for wikipedia's standards, as i don't want to edit war. "i don't like it," "i think it's a trivial product," or "i know that it's too similar to a glock 17 to be considered distinct" without proper sourcing is not acceptable. thanks. Theserialcomma ( talk) 09:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with Koalorka and Mudwater. The G18 is almost insignificant when compared to the other models, and doesn't warrant making the lead section so confusing to the average reader. — Dan MP5 16:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
it's irrelevant to me if you are a 'heavy hitter' on this article, a complete newbie, or a flying unicorn made out of magical puppy kisses. the relevant aspect to wikipedia is not the editor's 'heavy hitting' dedication to the topic, but the sources involved, verifiability, and consensus. because there is no consensus to make the changes i am proposing, then the changes will not be made. that is the only result that is relevant to wikipedia's policies, and i won't try to make amendments against consensus. that is why i came to the talk page, to discuss. i suggest all "heavy hitters" and those who use the "heavy hitter" fallacy to read WP:OWN. Theserialcomma ( talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
nukes, you removed a sourced sentence to revert to no source at all. you are the one who is edit warring. the so-called reliable source that you claim counters jane's (but you did not actually provide in the article) is 1. probably not a reliable source, as 'cybershooters.org deactivated gun collector's association' does not appear to have the editorial oversight and reputation of jane's. just compare the amount of times janes is cited on wikipedia to cybershooters.org: janes.com is cited 21265 times according to [ [10]], whereas cybershooters.org is cited on wikipedia 2 times. [ [11]]. In short, do not remove reliably referenced sentences unless you have a new and better source, actually provide it, and justify why you believe it to be a better source. please see WP:RS. also, you may ask the reliable source notice board if cybershooters.org (or, in this case, no source at all) is acceptable to replace janes.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. you might not like their answer, though. Theserialcomma ( talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
i really have no idea what you are having a meltdown over. i am just looking for the article to have reliable sources for its claims, and that the claims are accurately buttressed by the source. that's all. Theserialcomma ( talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 05:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
relax, guy. the article's talk page is meant to be used for discussing the article and how to make it better. neither your poetry nor your rants help the article, but some reliable sources about glocks would. this isn't a message board or a chatroom. Theserialcomma ( talk) 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
i'm not sure what your recent rant has to do with making the article better, but i propose using janes.com as a reliable source, and accurately stating what is written there. the gun collector's club website doesn't appear to be as reliable, so as to trump janes.com, but that might be a better call for the reliable sources board. Theserialcomma ( talk) 06:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
your continued personal attacks and incivility are going to get you nowhere. i suggest you start talking about, oh, i don't know, glock pistols? hey, what an awesome idea. Theserialcomma ( talk) 06:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you're hounding me, I'll turn and fight. Over 7,500 agencies use the Glock. [12] That includes 70% of the law enforcement agencies in the United States. [13] [14] A paragraph and reference for each and every agency is impossible. Whenever the list gets out of hand, it is the job of us RESPONSIBLE editors to cull the list and not waste our time hounding other editors. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have full protected (admins only edit) for 3 days due to ongoing multiparty edit warring.
I am also warning all the edit warriors, publically here and on your talk pages - this is not acceptable, stop it. This has violated edit warring policy, no personal attacks policy, and our civility policy. If this continues accounts will be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)