This page 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. |
You might find this interesting. -- Yaf ( talk) 20:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, N4T. I've removed this little...nugget. It's in the history if you want to link to it in future. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The matter is being dealt with now, well done for keeping your cool. Happy editing, Chafford ( talk) 08:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And how exactly is the photo required for reader comprehension in M1 Carbine? Does the article talk about Malcolm X at all? No. Even if it did, it would have to discuss the photo itself, as is done in Malcolm X. There's no way you can justify its use in M1 Carbine -- as it stands, it's pretty much the example cited in WP:NFC#Unacceptable uses Images #2. Note that I'm not asking for the image's deletion; it just doesn't belong here. howcheng { chat} 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Recent reverts: (others prior) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. You'll note from WP:3RR that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". Other people are attempting to enforce our Non free content policies, which exempts them from 3RR, as stated here. You are clearly violating this section (among others) of the NFC policy. You don't need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun; it just isn't necessary, as Fair use requires. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Nukes4Tots ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocking admin has expressed an opinion about an interpretation of a WP policy that does not address the policy. Specifically, he stated "You don't need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun" (he underlined it). This admin clearly will not allow any argument for the inclusion of the photo because he is prejudiced against its use in an article about a gun. This statement was the reason for my block, not any WP policy.
Decline reason:
The policy against edit warring is clear enough. You were warned about it but chose to disregard the warning as a "threat". If you ignore warnings, you have to accept the consequences. — Kafziel Complaint Department 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Since I've blocked you, a lot has been happening on that article. Lots of reverting by lots of people. I dont think it is fair to leave only you blocked at this point, so I'd be willing to unblock you assuming that you agree to not edit war any further (on that page, or any other). There is no reason you cannot discuss civilly, without reverting the edits until a decision is made. Its your call. If you agree to stop edit warring, just request unblock again, noting so. (Also note that the page is going to be protected to prevent anybody else from edit warring) - Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'd appreciate if you didn't remove the images from the article. Other articles have images that don't include the subject but are relevant to the article, such as Emma Goldman. I'm trying to get the article to Featured article status, and one of the criteria is that the article should have images.
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jetwave Dave. I've properly formatted the case page and left you some questions to answer. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you could say that I've had a run in or two with out mutual friend. There's been probably a dozen more that have popped up that aren't listed on either of the checkusers, mostly variations on my username or real name. Thankfully, the off-wiki harassment has mostly stopped by now, and he now busies himself with creating accounts like User:Parsecboy is a Paedophile that are easily tracked and blocked. I'm not sure how User:DroneZone turned up as unrelated, as it is a name used frequently by Jetwave, and the edits follow the same pattern, especially the fascination with the Korobov prototypes. Some of the photos he's uploaded are the exact same photos Jetwave loves to post in the various weapons forums. I can only hope, in a gallows humor sort of way, that he's moved on from me and latched himself on to you :) But seriously, if and when more of his socks pop up, I'll be more than happy to block on site. Oh, and User:Dmcdevit is aware of the Jetwave situation, and I've been taking socks one or two at a time to him to checkuser for a while now. I'm sure he'll work with you as well. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 02:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. This guy sure does love to stalk people and post their personal information, thankfully I chose to only use this user name on wikis, so he couldn't track me down to anywhere else. I can't believe that DroneZone was unrelated, I am positive that it's jetwave, their edit histories are almost exactly the same with the exception of jetwave's obsession with trans-gendered british military personnel. I think he got around the checksum somehow. — Dan MP5 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate your input on the new proposal to merge the C8 page with the C7 page ( Discuss). I believe it was abruptly ended the last time, and that the lack of "consensus" was based on false observations and inaccurate understandings, as much as legitimate points. -- Thatguy96 ( talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.-- LWF ( talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
See my proposal at User talk:Geodkyt. I think we all need to lay out sources first, where everyone can see them, and then work on a compromise that is well referenced and takes all sources into account. scot ( talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your comment on reverting my edit. That will help condition me for more face slaps by the stock market. If you were to accord the benefit of the doubt that I had made the edit in good faith, you would not have removed the text which disambiguates one Hiram Maxim from the other. Apparently you feel it is more useful to have the reader click to Hiram Maxim, whose page title has been changed to resolve this ambiguity, to Hiram Stevens Maxim to distinguish this Hiram, inventor of the Maxim Gun, from son, Hiram Percy Maxim, inventor of the Maxim Silencer. My research did not uncover why this is not a useful clarification. What does yours show? Newportm ( talk) 23:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This company you refer to owns the Maxim name, all rights to manufacture under it, has a large archive of its materials, produces this product, and therefore can hardly be considered to be tangential to the thing itself. Newportm ( talk) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
In this , you tried to add a citation to the Garand article. It is a <ref> named "knaack". Unfortunately that ref name is not defined in that article, causing an error message in the reference list at the bottom. Nor does it appear to be in the edit history such that I could resurrect it for you. Can you provide the complete citation? -- J Clear ( talk) 11:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice you reverted Garand described as "Canadian". Since I imagine many Canadians, even firearms enthusiasts, don't know he was born here (I didn't till not so long ago, & most sources I've seen (few as they are, admittedly} don't mention it), would you have a problem with it being "Canadian-born"? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the good work you doing with gun-related articles! -- Boris Barowski ( talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nukes. I wanted to let you know a recent checkuser I filed on Commons turned up Nuke4Tot, another Jetwave sock aimed at harassing you. I reverted his edits to your Commons user and talk pages, but it's likely he'll continue socking on Commons, so you'll want to keep an eye out. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, User:Orthopraxia is revert-warring with me over the Misr copy of the AKM, it's a straightforward copy of the Soviet AKM, he has not even bothered arguing his point and accused me of vandalism, which indicates he is there to troll or doing it out of blind nationalism (he claims to be Egyptian). I would appreciate if you could weigh in your opinion on the talk page. He also seems to be inserting Egypt as a user for many other modern Western weapon types (UMP, Minimi) without providing any sort of references, keep an eye out on him. Cheers. Koalorka ( talk) 18:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The information source is C.I.P.. If you download the C.I.P. decisions, texts and tables ( free current C.I.P. CD-ROM version download (100+ MB in ZIP and RAR format)) you can look up a vast amount of legal and technical information and technical drawings regarding ammunition and firearms in English, French or German. Under "Tables" you find, amongst other data, Pmax data for almost every commercially produced cartridge. In C.I.P. member states (like the UK) this data is used as the only applicable legal standard. C.I.P. uses the metric system to express quantities. For pressure you have to know 10 bar = 1 MPa, so 3250 bar = 325.00 MPa.
Please note that the C.I.P. technical drawings are copyrighted, so please do not copy and paste them into Wikipedia. Since the 9 mm Luger (its official C.I.P. nomenclature) is a German cartridge (Germany is a C.I.P. member state), I think the C.I.P. Pmax can be regarded as an appropriate source in this case. There are also relations between C.I.P. and NATO EPVAT testing standards. NATO obviously chose to ignore SAAMI standards.
The American equivalent of C.I.P. is the SAAMI although operating differently. SAAMI is a manufacturer's association. In contrast to C.I.P.’s decisions the recommendations of SAAMI have not the force of law. These two main ammunition standards organisations are cooperating in an effort to unify their rules, though there are still hard at work to solve differences between their rules. These differences consist of varying chamber dimensions and maximum allowed chamber pressures. There are also technical variations in the way chamber pressures are measured giving different results.
If you are aware where SAAMI publishes its data on the internet that information would be great for Wikipedia. As long as SAAMI data can not be directly accessed from the SAAMI website itself, I personally tend to question SAAMI data cited somewhat, since the cited SAAMI data on Wikipedia comes from third party sources.-- Francis Flinch ( talk) 09:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Nukes, you might find the discussion at Talk:B-2 Spirit#"WP:Air/PC" "Project Aircraft" not a definitive blueprint for this article interesting. I think your perspective on the issues raised by User:Critical Chris would be valuable here. Thanks for looking. - BillCJ ( talk) 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being called a "twit", and furthermore, that puts YOU in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. When someone makes a mistake, you explain it, not be a fucking jackass about it. Maybe you should clean up your "shit" before you accuse everyone else of adding it. 206.130.99.180 ( talk) 02:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The last guy to make an edit put both types of rifles in the info box. That seems fine by me, and I'm willing to drop a subject as silly as what we should label the M1 Garand on Wikipedia! I hope we can put this behind us. Akyoyo94 ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, you have got to BS-ing me here, haven't you heard of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars? Plus, what I did was adding a simple video clip into the article even if it was after you guys had insisted on that a "30 round clip" isn't the same as a "30 round magazine". Tell me now, what is your good reason for removing that video clip after I had made the appropriate changes to it per "community standard"? I'd love to hear about it. And if you can't provide a convincing reason, I will add it back per WP:IAR regardless of you citing me for 3RR. ... Dave1185 ( talk) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I notice that you've recently been involved in discussion on the Talk:FN P90 page. I'm trying to make some copyedits to that article and meeting significant opposition of a personal, rather than constructive, nature; as you've worked with the editor most opposed to my changes before, is there any chance you could weigh in on what I've proposed? The thread is at Talk:FN P90#Content update, and the most recent version of the article using the new layout I came up with is here. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the edit you made in the P-51 article about when the plane was retired. While it was retired by the USAF in 1957, it served on until 1984 with the Dominican Air Force. It also was to involved in combat with that plane in 1965 and was also used in the 1969 Football War. The P-51 served with numerous air forces throughtout the '70s.-- Panzertank ( talk) 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is the height parameter not suitable for rifles? It's used in both official marketing material among the big manufacturers, why is it less suitable on the AUG than it is on the MP7? Koalorka ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I too think every kid should be allowed to carry her own thermonuclear sidearm. Cheers for all you're doing to make the world a happier, safer place :) Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
continue the discussion in the References for "Civilian use" section already in Talk section of .30 carbine SJSA 19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey
You have rolled back my edit for the operators section in
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon where I added the
Lebanese Armed Forces as users of this weapon. Please have a look at these photos:
-- Zaher1988 · Talk 23:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering you addressed me with the salutation, "Hey", I was assuming that's how you wanted to keep the discourse. Whatever, your highness, I'm easy. At any rate, your worshipfulness, if you'd kindly read my edit comments as you should have done in the first place, you'll see that I had already told you why your edits were being reverted. So, you came in here, sire, and proceeded to cite pictures of the same weapon I'd said... the MINIMI! I'm sorry if you were not thorough enough, your holiness, to actually read the edit comments before you jumped over here to prove me right. Then you lecture me about my tone. I deeply and sincerely apologize for any real or perceived slight that my grammar might have burdened you with. Merry Christmas to you and yours. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so what's your problem? We have, besides others, articles about
Seung-Hui Cho,
Jeff Weise and
Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold so providing information about the perpetrator is nothing new. As per
WP:BIO1E I'd assume that the person in question does not merit his own article, which means that the information should be provided within the article about the massacre, which is also nothing special if you look
here and
here. And it's not that the article is that long already so a little bit more content wouldn't hurt. BTW you didn't provide any reason for reverting my edit besides your perceived balancing problems. And exactly what is disputet in my addition?
And who are you anyway to throw around 3RR-templates. You certainly don't look like an admin. (
Lord Gøn (
talk) 00:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
Okay, I'll assume good faith. Good faith implies that you didn't know about the 3RR, otherwise you would not have been edit warring. Further, I'll assume now that you don't know the procedure for editing. Add content. If the content is disputed, said content should be removed until it's discussed on the talk page and a concensus is reached. This is a community and you're trying to bully your your content. Moreover, it's my responsibility to put the 3RR template there, not an admin's. Finally, you are being awful abrasive about this when you aren't following guidelines on how the editing process should run. Understanding all of that, please plead your case on the talk page. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 01:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"removed poorly placed information. First, it needs to be referenced. Second, it needs to be integrated into the text. This quasi-table is information that is useful to maybe 1 in 1000 people)"
Hmm, ok, yes, it needs referencing, cant' argue with that. :) Unfortunately, the references I'm finding are from forums rather than from Ruger. Would those be acceptable? I also agree it needs to be integrated into the text better, but I'm not sure where...any ideas? Gotta disagree about it's usefulness. Twist rate is crucial for accuracy (though I'm well aware of the criticisms involving the mini's accuracy :) ) and is useful for both reloaders and shooters buying factory manufactured ammo. Any suggestions you may have are appreciated. Tengu99 ( talk) 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You have removed Lebanon from the list though it was already there for ages, and what I did was only to clarify what forces use it. And you are asking for a source, well I can't provide materials as sources other than photos from the military parade and from various event; however, it is common on Wikipedia not to accept these photos are a source. So I suggest you keep Lebanon and simply put citation needed next to it until someone find a written text mentioning that. -- Zaher1988 · Talk| Contributions 11:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
No oil drilling platforms are taller than the Burj Dubai. If there really is, I'd like to know the name. 64.80.57.251 ( talk) 17:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC) User:Daniel Christensen. Forgot to sign in.
You just reverted my edit to the Walther PP page, saying the SIG P230 is "completely different save from the fact it's a pistol." I would ask you to explain/verify that. It says right in the article "but the refined SIG P230 and the P232, owe much to the Walther PPK." How are SIG P230's not related to Walther PPK's? Thanks, Dictouray ( talk) 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
don't do this.
It doesn't work. This is a formal warning. You will be blocked next time. I hate to drop a bunch of links on you, but please heed Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and meta:Don't be a dick. Xavexgoem ( talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC) seriously, that was uncalled for, dude
The incivility and edit warring, which you are fully participating in, has continued on the Talk:Glock pistols page and Glock pistols article.
This has violated edit warring policy, no personal attacks policy, and our civility policy. If this continues accounts will be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see talk page.-- Patton t/ c 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if your recent edits to the "Users" list on the Glock page are appropriate. The list is not meant to be just a series of flags and model types. You've removed important dates and other vital information. The list should be as comprehensive as possible, within reason of course (I agree with you on excluding individual organizations if too great in number, like US law enforcement agencies). Koalorka ( talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
First, you are edit warring to include unsourced information [ [10]]. the glock.com source says nothing about "perceived" recoil, so i removed it. see WP:PROVEIT. second, it is not wikihounding to undo unsourced additions. "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and i have not followed you to multiple articles. i've only removed your unsourced additions and original research from glock pistols, which is what any editor is supposed to do. 'perceived' recoil is unencyclopedic, unsourced, original research, until proven otherwise. Theserialcomma ( talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Your premise reminds me of a story, probably fromn Alan King, about sophisticated toys he ran into while holiday-shopping for his kids. One was a Nuclear War toy. It was subtitled, "Be the first on your block to be the last on your block." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nukes4Tots. I'm probably not the first admin to be seriously tempted to block you for personal attacks. There is currently a case open at WP:AN3 concerning your edits. We do have a process called WP:Dispute resolution, available to people who can't reach agreement. If you are willing to say anything at all conciliatory in that AN3 report, it might be closed with no action. If there is not the slightest initiative coming from you to reach an amicable settlement, I don't see a good result. The article has been full-protected once; I think the next step is going to be blocks for somebody. Make us an offer. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below. *Any* conciliatory gesture could have averted this result. We expect our editors to be grownups, and we shouldn't have to advise you every step of the way, to rescue you from intractable quarrels. See the AN3 discussion. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Nukes4Tots ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This issue had already been resolved. The reporting user reported me to 3rr despite having already reported the incident TWICE on AN/I. Here are his previous reports: here and here. He then questioned a source that I added that agreed with his source: here. Further, he knew he was forum shopping because he asked for advice: here. He basically took four shots at me to get me banned and used the same 'evidence' four separate times in an attempt to blanket as many Admin's as possible to get the results he wanted. I believe that in light of his hounding, baiting, and badgering me as well as reporting me for the same thing four times, some leniency is due. I admit to using foul language and being kurt and deliberate in my conversations and agree not to speak with this editor again, however he is now badgering other editors on the same article as well as removing legitemate sources I added prior to my ban. I would like to approach that civilly and argue my case. Thank you. Nukes4Tots ( talk) 17:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's a 24 hour block (as per your previous blocks, 48 would have been reasonable) which will expire soon. Wait. — Athaenara ✉ 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nothing in your response indicates you read my appeal and you don't address any points I made. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 18:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
if you want to discuss this civilly, the reason i removed your new source about 'perceived recoil' [ [12]] is because, yes, the source is about recoil, but it has nothing to do with glocks. that source would be more appropriate for an article about recoil. it would be like if someone added in the article about barack obama that he played point guard during his high school basketball career, but the source provided was just about what point guards do, not about barack obama playing point guard. the source wouldn't be directly relevant to the claim Theserialcomma ( talk) 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This page 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. |
You might find this interesting. -- Yaf ( talk) 20:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, N4T. I've removed this little...nugget. It's in the history if you want to link to it in future. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The matter is being dealt with now, well done for keeping your cool. Happy editing, Chafford ( talk) 08:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And how exactly is the photo required for reader comprehension in M1 Carbine? Does the article talk about Malcolm X at all? No. Even if it did, it would have to discuss the photo itself, as is done in Malcolm X. There's no way you can justify its use in M1 Carbine -- as it stands, it's pretty much the example cited in WP:NFC#Unacceptable uses Images #2. Note that I'm not asking for the image's deletion; it just doesn't belong here. howcheng { chat} 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Recent reverts: (others prior) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. You'll note from WP:3RR that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". Other people are attempting to enforce our Non free content policies, which exempts them from 3RR, as stated here. You are clearly violating this section (among others) of the NFC policy. You don't need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun; it just isn't necessary, as Fair use requires. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Nukes4Tots ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocking admin has expressed an opinion about an interpretation of a WP policy that does not address the policy. Specifically, he stated "You don't need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun" (he underlined it). This admin clearly will not allow any argument for the inclusion of the photo because he is prejudiced against its use in an article about a gun. This statement was the reason for my block, not any WP policy.
Decline reason:
The policy against edit warring is clear enough. You were warned about it but chose to disregard the warning as a "threat". If you ignore warnings, you have to accept the consequences. — Kafziel Complaint Department 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Since I've blocked you, a lot has been happening on that article. Lots of reverting by lots of people. I dont think it is fair to leave only you blocked at this point, so I'd be willing to unblock you assuming that you agree to not edit war any further (on that page, or any other). There is no reason you cannot discuss civilly, without reverting the edits until a decision is made. Its your call. If you agree to stop edit warring, just request unblock again, noting so. (Also note that the page is going to be protected to prevent anybody else from edit warring) - Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'd appreciate if you didn't remove the images from the article. Other articles have images that don't include the subject but are relevant to the article, such as Emma Goldman. I'm trying to get the article to Featured article status, and one of the criteria is that the article should have images.
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jetwave Dave. I've properly formatted the case page and left you some questions to answer. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you could say that I've had a run in or two with out mutual friend. There's been probably a dozen more that have popped up that aren't listed on either of the checkusers, mostly variations on my username or real name. Thankfully, the off-wiki harassment has mostly stopped by now, and he now busies himself with creating accounts like User:Parsecboy is a Paedophile that are easily tracked and blocked. I'm not sure how User:DroneZone turned up as unrelated, as it is a name used frequently by Jetwave, and the edits follow the same pattern, especially the fascination with the Korobov prototypes. Some of the photos he's uploaded are the exact same photos Jetwave loves to post in the various weapons forums. I can only hope, in a gallows humor sort of way, that he's moved on from me and latched himself on to you :) But seriously, if and when more of his socks pop up, I'll be more than happy to block on site. Oh, and User:Dmcdevit is aware of the Jetwave situation, and I've been taking socks one or two at a time to him to checkuser for a while now. I'm sure he'll work with you as well. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 02:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. This guy sure does love to stalk people and post their personal information, thankfully I chose to only use this user name on wikis, so he couldn't track me down to anywhere else. I can't believe that DroneZone was unrelated, I am positive that it's jetwave, their edit histories are almost exactly the same with the exception of jetwave's obsession with trans-gendered british military personnel. I think he got around the checksum somehow. — Dan MP5 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate your input on the new proposal to merge the C8 page with the C7 page ( Discuss). I believe it was abruptly ended the last time, and that the lack of "consensus" was based on false observations and inaccurate understandings, as much as legitimate points. -- Thatguy96 ( talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.-- LWF ( talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
See my proposal at User talk:Geodkyt. I think we all need to lay out sources first, where everyone can see them, and then work on a compromise that is well referenced and takes all sources into account. scot ( talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your comment on reverting my edit. That will help condition me for more face slaps by the stock market. If you were to accord the benefit of the doubt that I had made the edit in good faith, you would not have removed the text which disambiguates one Hiram Maxim from the other. Apparently you feel it is more useful to have the reader click to Hiram Maxim, whose page title has been changed to resolve this ambiguity, to Hiram Stevens Maxim to distinguish this Hiram, inventor of the Maxim Gun, from son, Hiram Percy Maxim, inventor of the Maxim Silencer. My research did not uncover why this is not a useful clarification. What does yours show? Newportm ( talk) 23:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This company you refer to owns the Maxim name, all rights to manufacture under it, has a large archive of its materials, produces this product, and therefore can hardly be considered to be tangential to the thing itself. Newportm ( talk) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
In this , you tried to add a citation to the Garand article. It is a <ref> named "knaack". Unfortunately that ref name is not defined in that article, causing an error message in the reference list at the bottom. Nor does it appear to be in the edit history such that I could resurrect it for you. Can you provide the complete citation? -- J Clear ( talk) 11:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice you reverted Garand described as "Canadian". Since I imagine many Canadians, even firearms enthusiasts, don't know he was born here (I didn't till not so long ago, & most sources I've seen (few as they are, admittedly} don't mention it), would you have a problem with it being "Canadian-born"? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the good work you doing with gun-related articles! -- Boris Barowski ( talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nukes. I wanted to let you know a recent checkuser I filed on Commons turned up Nuke4Tot, another Jetwave sock aimed at harassing you. I reverted his edits to your Commons user and talk pages, but it's likely he'll continue socking on Commons, so you'll want to keep an eye out. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, User:Orthopraxia is revert-warring with me over the Misr copy of the AKM, it's a straightforward copy of the Soviet AKM, he has not even bothered arguing his point and accused me of vandalism, which indicates he is there to troll or doing it out of blind nationalism (he claims to be Egyptian). I would appreciate if you could weigh in your opinion on the talk page. He also seems to be inserting Egypt as a user for many other modern Western weapon types (UMP, Minimi) without providing any sort of references, keep an eye out on him. Cheers. Koalorka ( talk) 18:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The information source is C.I.P.. If you download the C.I.P. decisions, texts and tables ( free current C.I.P. CD-ROM version download (100+ MB in ZIP and RAR format)) you can look up a vast amount of legal and technical information and technical drawings regarding ammunition and firearms in English, French or German. Under "Tables" you find, amongst other data, Pmax data for almost every commercially produced cartridge. In C.I.P. member states (like the UK) this data is used as the only applicable legal standard. C.I.P. uses the metric system to express quantities. For pressure you have to know 10 bar = 1 MPa, so 3250 bar = 325.00 MPa.
Please note that the C.I.P. technical drawings are copyrighted, so please do not copy and paste them into Wikipedia. Since the 9 mm Luger (its official C.I.P. nomenclature) is a German cartridge (Germany is a C.I.P. member state), I think the C.I.P. Pmax can be regarded as an appropriate source in this case. There are also relations between C.I.P. and NATO EPVAT testing standards. NATO obviously chose to ignore SAAMI standards.
The American equivalent of C.I.P. is the SAAMI although operating differently. SAAMI is a manufacturer's association. In contrast to C.I.P.’s decisions the recommendations of SAAMI have not the force of law. These two main ammunition standards organisations are cooperating in an effort to unify their rules, though there are still hard at work to solve differences between their rules. These differences consist of varying chamber dimensions and maximum allowed chamber pressures. There are also technical variations in the way chamber pressures are measured giving different results.
If you are aware where SAAMI publishes its data on the internet that information would be great for Wikipedia. As long as SAAMI data can not be directly accessed from the SAAMI website itself, I personally tend to question SAAMI data cited somewhat, since the cited SAAMI data on Wikipedia comes from third party sources.-- Francis Flinch ( talk) 09:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Nukes, you might find the discussion at Talk:B-2 Spirit#"WP:Air/PC" "Project Aircraft" not a definitive blueprint for this article interesting. I think your perspective on the issues raised by User:Critical Chris would be valuable here. Thanks for looking. - BillCJ ( talk) 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being called a "twit", and furthermore, that puts YOU in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. When someone makes a mistake, you explain it, not be a fucking jackass about it. Maybe you should clean up your "shit" before you accuse everyone else of adding it. 206.130.99.180 ( talk) 02:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The last guy to make an edit put both types of rifles in the info box. That seems fine by me, and I'm willing to drop a subject as silly as what we should label the M1 Garand on Wikipedia! I hope we can put this behind us. Akyoyo94 ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, you have got to BS-ing me here, haven't you heard of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars? Plus, what I did was adding a simple video clip into the article even if it was after you guys had insisted on that a "30 round clip" isn't the same as a "30 round magazine". Tell me now, what is your good reason for removing that video clip after I had made the appropriate changes to it per "community standard"? I'd love to hear about it. And if you can't provide a convincing reason, I will add it back per WP:IAR regardless of you citing me for 3RR. ... Dave1185 ( talk) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I notice that you've recently been involved in discussion on the Talk:FN P90 page. I'm trying to make some copyedits to that article and meeting significant opposition of a personal, rather than constructive, nature; as you've worked with the editor most opposed to my changes before, is there any chance you could weigh in on what I've proposed? The thread is at Talk:FN P90#Content update, and the most recent version of the article using the new layout I came up with is here. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the edit you made in the P-51 article about when the plane was retired. While it was retired by the USAF in 1957, it served on until 1984 with the Dominican Air Force. It also was to involved in combat with that plane in 1965 and was also used in the 1969 Football War. The P-51 served with numerous air forces throughtout the '70s.-- Panzertank ( talk) 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is the height parameter not suitable for rifles? It's used in both official marketing material among the big manufacturers, why is it less suitable on the AUG than it is on the MP7? Koalorka ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I too think every kid should be allowed to carry her own thermonuclear sidearm. Cheers for all you're doing to make the world a happier, safer place :) Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
continue the discussion in the References for "Civilian use" section already in Talk section of .30 carbine SJSA 19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey
You have rolled back my edit for the operators section in
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon where I added the
Lebanese Armed Forces as users of this weapon. Please have a look at these photos:
-- Zaher1988 · Talk 23:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering you addressed me with the salutation, "Hey", I was assuming that's how you wanted to keep the discourse. Whatever, your highness, I'm easy. At any rate, your worshipfulness, if you'd kindly read my edit comments as you should have done in the first place, you'll see that I had already told you why your edits were being reverted. So, you came in here, sire, and proceeded to cite pictures of the same weapon I'd said... the MINIMI! I'm sorry if you were not thorough enough, your holiness, to actually read the edit comments before you jumped over here to prove me right. Then you lecture me about my tone. I deeply and sincerely apologize for any real or perceived slight that my grammar might have burdened you with. Merry Christmas to you and yours. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so what's your problem? We have, besides others, articles about
Seung-Hui Cho,
Jeff Weise and
Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold so providing information about the perpetrator is nothing new. As per
WP:BIO1E I'd assume that the person in question does not merit his own article, which means that the information should be provided within the article about the massacre, which is also nothing special if you look
here and
here. And it's not that the article is that long already so a little bit more content wouldn't hurt. BTW you didn't provide any reason for reverting my edit besides your perceived balancing problems. And exactly what is disputet in my addition?
And who are you anyway to throw around 3RR-templates. You certainly don't look like an admin. (
Lord Gøn (
talk) 00:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
Okay, I'll assume good faith. Good faith implies that you didn't know about the 3RR, otherwise you would not have been edit warring. Further, I'll assume now that you don't know the procedure for editing. Add content. If the content is disputed, said content should be removed until it's discussed on the talk page and a concensus is reached. This is a community and you're trying to bully your your content. Moreover, it's my responsibility to put the 3RR template there, not an admin's. Finally, you are being awful abrasive about this when you aren't following guidelines on how the editing process should run. Understanding all of that, please plead your case on the talk page. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 01:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"removed poorly placed information. First, it needs to be referenced. Second, it needs to be integrated into the text. This quasi-table is information that is useful to maybe 1 in 1000 people)"
Hmm, ok, yes, it needs referencing, cant' argue with that. :) Unfortunately, the references I'm finding are from forums rather than from Ruger. Would those be acceptable? I also agree it needs to be integrated into the text better, but I'm not sure where...any ideas? Gotta disagree about it's usefulness. Twist rate is crucial for accuracy (though I'm well aware of the criticisms involving the mini's accuracy :) ) and is useful for both reloaders and shooters buying factory manufactured ammo. Any suggestions you may have are appreciated. Tengu99 ( talk) 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You have removed Lebanon from the list though it was already there for ages, and what I did was only to clarify what forces use it. And you are asking for a source, well I can't provide materials as sources other than photos from the military parade and from various event; however, it is common on Wikipedia not to accept these photos are a source. So I suggest you keep Lebanon and simply put citation needed next to it until someone find a written text mentioning that. -- Zaher1988 · Talk| Contributions 11:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
No oil drilling platforms are taller than the Burj Dubai. If there really is, I'd like to know the name. 64.80.57.251 ( talk) 17:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC) User:Daniel Christensen. Forgot to sign in.
You just reverted my edit to the Walther PP page, saying the SIG P230 is "completely different save from the fact it's a pistol." I would ask you to explain/verify that. It says right in the article "but the refined SIG P230 and the P232, owe much to the Walther PPK." How are SIG P230's not related to Walther PPK's? Thanks, Dictouray ( talk) 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
don't do this.
It doesn't work. This is a formal warning. You will be blocked next time. I hate to drop a bunch of links on you, but please heed Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and meta:Don't be a dick. Xavexgoem ( talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC) seriously, that was uncalled for, dude
The incivility and edit warring, which you are fully participating in, has continued on the Talk:Glock pistols page and Glock pistols article.
This has violated edit warring policy, no personal attacks policy, and our civility policy. If this continues accounts will be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see talk page.-- Patton t/ c 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if your recent edits to the "Users" list on the Glock page are appropriate. The list is not meant to be just a series of flags and model types. You've removed important dates and other vital information. The list should be as comprehensive as possible, within reason of course (I agree with you on excluding individual organizations if too great in number, like US law enforcement agencies). Koalorka ( talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
First, you are edit warring to include unsourced information [ [10]]. the glock.com source says nothing about "perceived" recoil, so i removed it. see WP:PROVEIT. second, it is not wikihounding to undo unsourced additions. "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and i have not followed you to multiple articles. i've only removed your unsourced additions and original research from glock pistols, which is what any editor is supposed to do. 'perceived' recoil is unencyclopedic, unsourced, original research, until proven otherwise. Theserialcomma ( talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Your premise reminds me of a story, probably fromn Alan King, about sophisticated toys he ran into while holiday-shopping for his kids. One was a Nuclear War toy. It was subtitled, "Be the first on your block to be the last on your block." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nukes4Tots. I'm probably not the first admin to be seriously tempted to block you for personal attacks. There is currently a case open at WP:AN3 concerning your edits. We do have a process called WP:Dispute resolution, available to people who can't reach agreement. If you are willing to say anything at all conciliatory in that AN3 report, it might be closed with no action. If there is not the slightest initiative coming from you to reach an amicable settlement, I don't see a good result. The article has been full-protected once; I think the next step is going to be blocks for somebody. Make us an offer. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below. *Any* conciliatory gesture could have averted this result. We expect our editors to be grownups, and we shouldn't have to advise you every step of the way, to rescue you from intractable quarrels. See the AN3 discussion. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Nukes4Tots ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This issue had already been resolved. The reporting user reported me to 3rr despite having already reported the incident TWICE on AN/I. Here are his previous reports: here and here. He then questioned a source that I added that agreed with his source: here. Further, he knew he was forum shopping because he asked for advice: here. He basically took four shots at me to get me banned and used the same 'evidence' four separate times in an attempt to blanket as many Admin's as possible to get the results he wanted. I believe that in light of his hounding, baiting, and badgering me as well as reporting me for the same thing four times, some leniency is due. I admit to using foul language and being kurt and deliberate in my conversations and agree not to speak with this editor again, however he is now badgering other editors on the same article as well as removing legitemate sources I added prior to my ban. I would like to approach that civilly and argue my case. Thank you. Nukes4Tots ( talk) 17:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's a 24 hour block (as per your previous blocks, 48 would have been reasonable) which will expire soon. Wait. — Athaenara ✉ 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nothing in your response indicates you read my appeal and you don't address any points I made. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 18:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
if you want to discuss this civilly, the reason i removed your new source about 'perceived recoil' [ [12]] is because, yes, the source is about recoil, but it has nothing to do with glocks. that source would be more appropriate for an article about recoil. it would be like if someone added in the article about barack obama that he played point guard during his high school basketball career, but the source provided was just about what point guards do, not about barack obama playing point guard. the source wouldn't be directly relevant to the claim Theserialcomma ( talk) 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)