User talk:Koalorka/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

FN FORUM EDITS

My name is "Shipwreck" - I made several edits and you keep undoing them. I am the ADMIN of the FN Forum. We linked our forum as a reference to several of the FN weapon summaries. We have been on there numerous times, but keep getting removed. We are a forum sponsored by FN themselves, and FN participates on our forum.

Stop removing my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistershipwreck (talk • contribs) 02:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I had no otherw ay to respond - so I put this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistershipwreck (talk • contribs) 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No linking to discussion forums. Simple. Koalorka (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We have staff at FN who participate at our forum and are an officially sponsored forum. They also do announcements on our site and do official Q&A sessions. When people look for info on the FS2000, PS90, Five Seven, etc - our site is a good resource. I believe it is a worthwhile link. --Mistershipwreck (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great, but policy dictates no linking to forums. Koalorka (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you reference that rule for me. Where can I find the do's and do-nots? I'm not trying to cause problems - I'm an admin myself, and dislike problems created for me. I'm just trying to understand all the rules here. Thank you.--Mistershipwreck (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know exactly where it is located, but it's in effect and all hotlinks to discussion forums were purged. Koalorka (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to butt in, but Koalorka is referring to Wikipedia:External links, specifically WP:ELNO.--LWF (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Always welcome LWF. Koalorka (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimax 100

Hi there

Your recent edit summary seems to contradict your edit: [1]. Could you take a look again? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, you guys even got me confused. It is definitely an open bolt. Koalorka (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rhetoric

I understand your apparent frustration, but it's generally not effective to just counter a personal attack with another attack or incivility. It is a good idea to address concerns directly on someone's talkpage, but this comment[2] would have been stronger if you could have avoided such words as "pathetic", and "sleazy". The last sentence could probably be strengthened or removed as well. --Elonka 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I will remove it, you are correct, thanks for the reasonable arbitration. Koalorka (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding.  :) Also, just a request, but your talkpage is currently over 150K, and some browsers start having difficulty with anything over 32K. Would you be willing to consider archiving some of the older threads? Or if you want, I could set up an archiving bot which would automatically take care of things for you? --Elonka 15:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It did grow rather large. If you could do that for me, I would certainly appreciate it. Koalorka (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.  :) It'll start up within 24 hours or so, and automatically archive any threads which have had no activity for 30 days. Feel free to tweak it to a different delay, or let me know if you'd like any changes. :) --Elonka 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Just thought I'd shoot you a "heads up" that you are being personally attacked by a user you're familiar with on a third party's talk page here: [3]. I saw your name taken in vain. Looks like your typical Ad hominem but I didn't know if you were aware of this particular one. Thanks. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

<Personal attack redacted>. Thanks for the heads up, luckily, irrational poeple self-destruct sooner or later. Koalorka (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Koalorka, incivility is not helping your case.  :/ Save that language for off-wiki, eh? Right now you're a hair's breadth away from going on ArbCom restrictions, and if at all possible, I'd rather avoid that. Thanks, --Elonka 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern but you have no right to muzzle people for presenting an alternative view. Koalorka (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I love alternative views.  :) What I dislike, is when people present such views in an uncivil manner, or without sources to back them up. But as long as you have good sources, and stay polite, you have pretty much free rein.  :) --Elonka 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Then source I shall. Koalorka (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment "another butthurt Marxist foaming at the mouth when confronted with a world view that contradicts their own" goes beyond the bounds of acceptability. I am sure you will understand that it comes across as a "hateful and highly prejudiced" remark. You will be reported on WP:AN/I for the 180 non-weapon related edits you have made on WP, detailed on User:Mathsci/subpage, which gives overwhelming evidence that you have a long track record of attacking editors, countering your obsessive extreme anti-Turkish POV-pushing, with unacceptable incivility and racial attacks. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears my observations are valid. Your perception of the world is so skewed, I can't even begin to help you. Koalorka (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough. Koalorka, I am sorry that you did not heed my earlier warning. I was trying to give you some leeway since you were being attacked, but this back and forth has to stop. You are now under ArbCom restrictions, and if there are any further incidents of incivility or disruption, then I, or any other uninvolved administrator, can impose an immediate block. Please try to ensure that this does not happen. It is essential from now on that you be very civil, and avoid any kind of disruptive edits, especially in topics concerning Turkey or related ethnic or geographical areas. Thanks, --Elonka 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand. Please could you explain what you mean by "butthurt" and what you mean by "Marxist". Thank you, Mathsci (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, tread cautiously here, as you too are very close to being put on restrictions. --Elonka 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: AK-74 deletion?

Although the image was licensed under {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, the source website stated "Any coping of the information from this site, without author's consent and reference thereto, is prohibited. All Rights Reserved Copyright ©1999-2008". Without any proof of the author's consent to a free license release, it was impossible to verify copyright status and the image fell under a speedy deletion criteria. If you have permission from Izhmash to release this photograph under a free license, please forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or follow the instructions at commons:OTRS. An OTRS volunteer will be able to officially verify the free license release and the image will be undeleted. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an email exchange linked to the permission on the image page. Was that omitted? Koalorka (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:

1. Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
2. Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
3. Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

--Elonka 16:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's not unreasonable, since I've been pushing my own opinion on that subject, rather than using confirmed sources. Does this restriction eventually expire? I'm not really active in that area, but I'm uncomfortable with any restrictions placed on anyone. Koalorka (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. Usually when someone is on restrictions it is permanent (and they are usually on restrictions for good reason). However, I could see that it would make sense to remove someone from the list if their behavior had been exemplary for a certain period of time (maybe 6 months of active editing). Speaking for myself, I would be willing to consider lifting restrictions at that point, though other admins might not agree. You can definitely bring it up though. --Elonka 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

SIG SG 550 (and other small arms) usage reference

I saw you edited the users section in the SG 550 article. You might find http://worldinventory.googlepages.com/ an interesting website. This website tries to conscientiously sum up small arms usage by country. Sometimes the website even elaborates which military or law enforcement branch or agency uses the listed small arms. In the Asia section you will read that Indonesia and Malaysia for instance both use lots of different small arms. For both countries the usage of several variants of the SG 550 series is mentioned. If you want to use this website as a reference regarding small arms usage I leave up to you.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the site fails to support any of that data. Malaysia and Indonesia are always suspect in my eyes because I know there are a lot of users from that area with an interest in firearms who like to fantasize about their special forces and include almost every weapon known to to man into their inventories without and verification. I try to verify each user either through national army websites/documents or photographic evidence of use. Both countries failed either test. Koalorka (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your scepticism looking through those “hardware lists”. Fantasizing can be a problem, but in some parts of the world small arms procurement and usage is rather chaotic compared to the US or Europe, where organisations tend to strive for uniform kit and business is generally conducted rather transparent. Though essentially humbug when not related to performing specific tasks, issuing non-standard kit is however a method employed to make groups and their principals stand out of the crowd to boost pride, egos, status, etc.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just love to see some mention of those particular weapons in the arsenals of those countries outside of random anonymous users claiming they use them, I simply couldn't trace any documented use. Koalorka (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

HK45 image

Just click on the image you want, this will select it, then copy and paste into an image editor and save. Hope that helps. Hayden120 (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you don't mind if I recycle your fair use template? Koalorka (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah that's fine, though I'd recommend the template from the HK P30 image as that is more up-to-date. Hayden120 (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am using the P30 template. I'm going to put up several other photos of models that aren't available. Koalorka (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I updated the HK45 image template, so now it's the same as the P30 image. Hayden120 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that if there is a free image already available, then it cannot be replaced with a fair-use image (as you have done on the UMP article). The rationale also describes this, so it is likely that image will soon be deleted. Hayden120 (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no free image of the UMP9... ;) Notice how I worded the rationale. Koalorka (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. ;) Hayden120 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Hiya, can you slow down a notch on the "undo" reverts? I'm trying to sort through things, and when it's just one editor making 10 reverts, and then another editor making 10 reverts, it gets really hard to follow. Can you let the article sit for awhile, while we get things figured out? Thanks, Elonka 02:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

10-4. Would appreciate if you could also advise the other party. It's basically a spat over excessive image use. Koalorka (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So warned. You've probably both passed 3RR at this point so I should probably just block both of you, but I don't want to have to sort through all the editing history. So please, no more reverts. Next one of you to undo an edit by the other, will be blocked though. Please work things out at talk instead. --Elonka 03:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Quickload kept going, I have blocked him for 24 hours. It's clear that you passed 3RR as well, but since you stopped when asked, I am not blocking your account. However, if you revert again (even if technically outside the 24-hour window), I will block. Instead of removing Quickload's edits, please try very hard to find a compromise version. You can also tag information as unsourced, move information around, or perhaps create a gallery at the bottom of the page to hold extra images. Feel free to be creative, or chat with him at his talkpage. Just please no more reverts. Thanks, Elonka 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Koalorka, accusing a blocked editor of lying,[4] (five times) is not making you look good, and neither is it going to be effective in trying to work out a compromise. Instead, it is better to adopt a very calm, almost detached, demeanor, such as to say, "I do not believe that is an accurate view of the situation." Please also avoid (and preferably remove) any terms such as "slander" or "libel", as those are the kinds of things that can get an account insta-blocked. See WP:LEGAL. Just stick with very neutral commentary, such as, "I see you wanted to add (sentence), but without a source. Any such challenged statement requires verification, so could you please say where you are getting this information, per WP:V?" Thanks, --Elonka 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

PGM Précision and other skeleton type precision rifles

Thanks for your work on the PGM Précision and OBR SM Tarnów rifle articles. It made me see PGM has restyled their website and also streamlining their rifle programme. The manual I have has PGM .338 LM printed on the front and consistently references to this rifle as such, but PGM can rename its products. Remind PGM is a manufacturer that has been around for some time and their “skeleton type precision rifles” product line gradually evolved to their current “3 available sizes” product palette. This kind of rifles has seen a lot of development lately.

In Poland OBR SM Tarnów is obviously busy to create a product range of skeleton type precision rifles. The 7.62mm Bor already has a bigger relative called the 12.7mm Tor. When you open the Polski article regarding the Bor rifle (I can not read Polish) you will see a link to the Karabin Tor. Though the Tor rifle article is in Polish the numbers and images prove its existence and use by a member of the Polish Armed Forces.

PGM 338 designer Chris Movigliatti has either been sitting still as you can see at http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn76-e.htm. Brügger & Thomet of Switzerland also offer skeleton type precision rifles that should be a further evolution of the French PGM rifle pattern. See for this http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn80-e.htm and http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn81-e.htm. At http://www.brugger-thomet.ch/en/manufacturing/firearms/apr.php?navanchor=2110033 you can read about the Brügger & Thomet APR rifles and download informative manuals. These manuals indicate fairly well what can realistically be expected of high end factory precision rifles marketed for military and law enforcement organisations.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting category of firearms. I noticed that the links were deprecated and ended up on PGM's new site, the rifle names were different so I chose to update the page. Do you think we should go back to the original titles? I understand that the rename was probably purely marketing-related with no physical changes to the hardware itself.

Poland's rifles are pretty interesting too. From what I understand, the Bor (as it is now named, you have probably noticed I moved the page from Alex) is based on the Tor, which was the first precision rifle built by OBR SM. We are lacking a Tor page, I will try to collect some information and at least create a stub.

With regards to the OM 50, just noticed that this design too was not yet present on Wiki, I went ahead and added it. The infobox is based on technical data from their published manual but the description is a word-for-word copy-paste of the Modern Firearms article. Hopefully, someone could reword it. I'm working on the B+T page right now. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The also know as part of the PGM 338 article is fine by me. The physical changes to the hardware itself are not very substantial. Think of (laminated) wood that became plastic furniture, adding a collapsible stock variant. These rifles are generally designed as rifle systems that can be tailored to the needs of the professional clientele/civilian long range users/wealthy tactical crowd demand. That makes that these rifle systems tend to gradually evolve.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Brügger & Thomet APR

I see you are industriously reshuffling and adding information to the article. I suggest renaming the article Brügger & Thomet APR instead of the current focusing on the APR308 model, since B&T developed 4 variants with their own designations in half a decade. No variant has up to now seen substantial commercial success to justify picking it as the most important or significant variant. Maybe B&T will develop variants for other chamberings in the near future based on this system. The APR platform is obviously quite easily up and down-scalable to meet market demands. The Table of Hit Probabilities as printed in the APR338 manual is remarkable. If B&T can prove this claim by bumping 99 out of a consecutive 100 rounds at independently controlled test shoots in 0.4 MOA target circles at 1500 m the commercial future for the APR338 might be bright despite its substantial weight. Until independent enthusiastic reports about this emerge I remain sceptical regarding this table.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I chose to rename the page to APR308 is because it was simply the first rifle developed in the series, the primary model, which was then developed into the specialized variants, the Police, Suppressed and .338 rifles. Like with the Arctic International rifles. The AW was the first model and was the basis for the entire line-up. Unless I am mistaken about the APR project timeline. Koalorka (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add metric units where grains where mentioned and added for precision rifles always important info regarding the maximal COL the system can handle without becoming a single shot fire arm. I saw B&T presents the “B&T APR Sniper Rifle” and mentions “APR sniper systems” on their website. B&T uses a systematic view on things. You prefer a historic view, but that is not really essential. The APR manuals specify a trigger pull of 1.5 – 2.5 kg. Is the 1.3 - 2.5 kg mentioned in the article a correction you obtained elsewhere?--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation on OM 50 Nemesis

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to OM 50 Nemesis. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. All or most of the text was taken from http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn76-e.htm, which is not licenced unter a free licence.  Sandstein  05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

CH-146 Griffon

Thanks for finding a better photo to headline this article. However in putting that photo into the article you deleted two other free images. There no reason to delete free photos from articles, so I have restored them. In this case, the article is not overwhelmed with photos and even if there were to many for the text they could be placed in a gallery. Photos, especially PD ones, can be very useful to students and other researchers as they can be freely used in their projects and reports. By deleting free images, you are denying researchers the choice of photos to use. - Ahunt (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Query on deletion of PS Magazine art

Hi Koalorka, I was wondering why you deleted the PS pinup of troubleshooting the M-3. It's an attractive image that would be of major use to owners and users of the weapon.Foofbun (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the article. Instructions are to be avoided. Feel free however, to link it under "external links" or "see also". Koalorka (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree on this as 1) it contains relevant information for any owner/user or even serious historian 2) it's an entertaining image that livens up the piece 3) it's a U.S. Government image that means no copyright issues. May we have a readers challenge on this one please?Foofbun (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

F-106 Delta Dart

Thanks for adding some new photos to this article. However in putting the new photos into the article you deleted two other free images. There no reason to delete free photos from articles, so I have restored them. In this case, the article is not overwhelmed with photos and even if there were to many for the text they could be placed in a gallery. Photos, especially PD ones, can be very useful to students and other researchers as they can be freely used in their projects and reports. By deleting free images, you are denying researchers the choice of photos to use. Please stop deleting images from articles. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not deleting images from articles, I'm merely substituting them with higher quality photographs that better illustrate the topic. The replaced photos are still available in a gallery linked to the page through commons and available to anyone wishing to access all available free content. Koalorka (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually not - one photo is available on Commons, but the other one isn't, so when you deleted the photo from the article it was gone from any reader's ability to find it. Whether the photos better illustrate the topic is debatable - if we follow that reasoning then it is likely that someone else will come along and delete your photos and replace them with some others that they think "better illustrate the topic". Rather than get into these sorts of battles it is better to not remove photos in the first place. If new ones are added and they exceed what the article can accommodate without getting too cluttered then it is better to put them into a gallery on the article page. Most casual readers aren't going to know to go to Commons to look for more photos, even if the photos are actually there.

Another factor to consider is that when you remove photos that another editor has provided, it acts as a strong demotivator for their future participation - after all why bother finding photos for articles when someone will just delete them soon anyway, because the new editor likes their own photos better? We get better participation on articles from more editors when we don't delete their work arbitrarily.

There was no need to delete existing photos in the process of adding yours. I am just asking in the future that you not delete existing photos when you add new ones. - Ahunt (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

MP5

What was wrong with that image?

-Carbonrodney (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is about to be removed by admins. Koalorka (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jesus Christ, would you stop with the destructive edits, I included your image, why retaliate by destroying the page harmony like you just did? A galler is provided and linked through commons."

Not destructive and not retaliatory. Read the Talk page.

You said yourself, staggered images are bad. I grouped them into one box to prevent similar problems with adding images in the future.

-Carbonrodney (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Glock photos

Are you going to re-upload your photos? Some uninformed moron has gone and deleted them (labeling them as a 'copyright infringement') with no warning. I'm guessing the person must have just looked at your previous history of uploads. Hayden120 (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will upload them, but I was blocked from Commons by the same moronic admin. Copyright infringement of my own personal handgun? Koalorka (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting AK74 Image description

Can you tell me why you keep reverting this image description from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74#Variants :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AK103.jpg

This is an AK103.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Russian_Naval_Infantryman.jpg

What is the difference?

One, being that the top photo depicts an AK-103 and the bottom - an AKS-74. Don't make edits when you have no idea about the subject matter. They will be removed and you may find yourself accused of vandalism. Koalorka (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for an explanation, not a rude response. The only difference I see is the buttstock. Before you threaten me again, please re-evaluate your attitude.

The AK-103 is chambered in 7.62x39mm, while the AK-74 is 5.45x39mm. Koalorka (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And in this particular image, how are you discerning that it is indeed the 5.45x39mm variant?

And how are you able to discern that it is the 7.62 mm AK-103? Which if true, should have a full polyamide stock, vertically ribbed magazine and is not even issued to Russian Naval Infantry? Koalorka (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The image with the soldier is taken in such an angle that you cannot see whether or not there are vertical curving ribs. As far as being used by Russian Naval Infantry, that isn't a very valid argument. You can even find images of U.S. Marines armed with Russian weaponry.

Also, here's an image of the AK103 from the AK103 article showing no vertical curving ribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RUS_AK-103.jpg

US Marines are not issued any Russian-designed firearms. The Russian Naval Infantry do not use the AK-103. The image pictured is not an AK-103. Koalorka (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

In reference to the proposed merger of the M249 and Mk 48, I would recommend that you actually create a topic on the discussion page since you were the user who proposed the actual merger. I went to the talk page and didn't find any entries so I created one. Not trying to bust your balls but makes sense. -Signaleer (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

An oversight on my part. Koalorka (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No one has commented on your discussion about the merger, so my assumption is that 1.) no on cares enough to comment about it 2.) if you went ahead and did the merger, no one would object. -Signaleer (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

European cuisine

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on European cuisine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 216.104.47.98 (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

The IP above has reported you to WP:3RR here [5]. Although it certainly doesn't seem like you've violated 3RR based on what he's posted, you might want to be prepared to defend yourself. Just letting you know. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review and comment on this Checksum

This is the request for checksum I put together: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DroneZone. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Input on C7/C8 merge proposal

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)

Heckler & Koch MP7

I saw you moved the References section of the Heckler & Koch MP7 article to a Notes section. I experienced in the past Wikipedia tends to tag texts (there might be bots involved) without a References section with actual reference content as unreferenced. Texts that imply the information might not be trustworthy and could be deleted can also appear. I suspect this an example of the tone or way something is communicated is often as important as what information or facts are actually communicated. I advise to use a References section instead of a Notes section when writing/editing Wikipedia articles to avoid being confronted with unsatisfactory reference tagging I experienced in the past.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Koalorka (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Zeiss / Hensoldt product names

I saw you did some edits regarding Hensoldt/Zeiss optics in the G36 article. Maybe I can shed some light on the Hensoldt history. The http://www.zeiss.com/C125716F004E0776/0/F56B48BBB022F101C1257175006782D2/$File/Innovation_11_35.pdf article and the http://www.zeiss.co.za/c12567a80033f8e4/Contents-Frame/8e4f89e09e5ef290c1256fb8002dac6a webpage give an insight in the Hensoldt company history. In 1928 Hensoldt AG was bought by the company that is now Carl Zeiss AG. The brand name Hensoldt was however continued by Zeiss until 2006. This Hensoldt/Zeiss situation sometimes resulted in the odd situation that the same products were offered under both brand names. The Hensoldt AG was renamed Carl Zeiss Sports Optics GmbH at October 1st, 2006.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Francis, I must be the bane of your existence. I apologize for all the corrections I force you to make and appreciate your patience. Koalorka (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

MAG

Where to discuss it? The reason is, that there have just appeared MAG-08, with chances for production, and article name is not adequate anymore. Pibwl ←« 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) By the way, looking quickly, I can't find a mandatory discussion at Help:Moving a page.

The MAG-95 is still the primary and initial version. List the MAG-08 in the variants section, highlight it with bold and you're set. Koalorka (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd stay with English, for it's English Wiki. Of course MAG-08 is just a variant, not a new type, that's why it doesn't deserve own article, but should be described in that article. It's just a variant, like MAG-98, so why can't it be listed along MAG-98? If you believe it should go to new section, please, create one, instead of cleaning all the information that I've added. In case you haven't noticed, I didn't try to rename article second time, although it deserves it, but added verifiable and important information and high quality photo. Removing all these things is just a simple vandalism to me. This is not your own article, but Wikipedia's. Pibwl ←« 22:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You replaced ANY mention of the MAG-95 with the newer MAG-08, that is not appropriate. Just add a sentence like: "Recently an updated version of the MAG was released, designated MAG-08, it features a bla bla yada yada". It's very simple. Koalorka (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please answer on my talk page. I didn't replace any mention of the MAG-95 with MAG-98, you should read carefully my changes first. I've only added:

• information in the header on MAG-98 and MAG-08 as further variants (because the title and header refers to MAG-95 only, which is currently only one of three models, not produced since the advent of MAG-98 in addition),
• correct date of ending production
• high quality photo of MAG-08 on a free licence, with a caption (because I have no photo of MAG-95)
• information on MAG-08 in chronological order, just like you suggest above
• Polish name of Prison Guard
• references.

If you believe, that they should be put in another way, improve the article, but DON'T REMOVE content-related information and photo, unless you have beter one, which I doubt. I believe, that we can improve this article together in a peaceful way (ignoring your offending remarks). Pibwl ←« 08:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Co ci nie pasuje z edycjami Pibwla? Dodał fotkę i uzupełnił historię. A za tego bastarda na pl-wiki miałbyś pewnie krótki urlop od wiki :/ Nemo5576 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Modern Firearms?

To tell you the truth, I added it merely as a holding category for Category:Modern rifles (indirectly also Category:Modern rifles of Finland) and Category:Modern firearms of the United States. As I was doing it, I began to wonder whether this category had any future (more or less for the reason you mentioned). Same could be said for Category:Modern weapons, though.

My off-the-top-of-my-head definition of a "modern weapon" would be the one that satisfies at least two of the following: 1) production started after WWII, 2) still being produced, 3) still in use by reasonably well-equipped armies. (For civilian weapons such as handguns, a different definition would be necessary.) Whether this is a meaningful definition for the purpose of categorization is, of course, another issue.

So, would you say that this is a CfD material? Having invested full 15 minutes of work, I don't think I'll have an issue with this. :-) GregorB (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had my doubts about the category when I first saw it. It really serves no purpose, and like you, I don't see any future for it. Koalorka (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your remark would extend to Category:Modern weapons too? Normally I'd nominate it for deletion, but given the number of subcategories (>40 - most of which would, of course, have to be deleted too), it could cause strong reactions. So, I'm leaving it alone (nothing to be done with it anyway now), and you're free (in fact, welcome) to nominate these categories for deletion. I'm not sure if they are useful, but if they have to go, then they all have to go. GregorB (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

These categories would never be complete. I recommend we simply stop adding any more pages and let them die off. Koalorka (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

MP5

Thanks for that correction, dumb mistake on my part. Feeling like a dickhead now. :P Hayden120 (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, everyone has the occasional brain fart. Koalorka (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bellum.nu stuff

I've taken care of some of them already. Thanks. Ominae (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope you agree that Bellum.nu isn't something we want to be using as a source, I do not by any means want to force this if you disagree. Koalorka (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

rkm wz. 28

Gdzie znajdę na en-wiki dane taktyczno techniczne rkmu wz. 28? Info o broniach opracowanych na jego bazie? Jak chcesz to integruj, ale nie metodą artykuł do kosza plus krótka wzmianka w innym. I dopóki przy tej integracji choć jeden fakt lub dana będzie usuwana dopóty będę Cię rewertował. Na marginesie czemu nie integrujesz artykułów o innych wersjach BARa? Taki specjalista nie potrafi ich znaleźć? Nemo5576 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Te ktora znalazlem zostaly wcielone do glownego artykulu. Wszystkie informacje ze strony o wz. 1928 zostaly poprawnie skopiowane do BAR'a, a rewertowac sobie mozesz, tylko jeszcze raz I do admina sie zwracam o pomoc. Przy okazji, wz. 1928 jest wedlug zasad postepowania WP: Firearms bezposrednia odmiana BAR i nie zasluguje na wlasna strone. A do kosza to radzilbym nacjonalizm wyrzucic, przy okazji wspomne, ze chyba nie ma na en Wiki osoby, ktora wiecej przczynila sie do rozwoju artykulow z Polskimi wzorami broni strzeleckiej niz ja. A odnosnie "Info o broniach opracowanych na jego bazie?", wskaz mi gdzie te informacje sie znajduja bo ja tylko widze wzmianke or karabinie lotniczym wz. 1937? Koalorka (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Po pierwsze. Odpowiada się na stronie dyskusji drugiej osoby. Po drugie. Jakoś Admini en-wiki nieszczególnie mi straszni. Skoro można tu bezkarnie nazwać drugiego usera "bastardem" znaczy łagodni są (a reguła trzech rewertów chyba obowiązuje?). Po trzecie. Słabo szukasz, albo masz niewielkie pojęcie o temacie bo ja akurat bez problemu widzę Kulsprutegevär m/21 and m/37. Po czwarte. Prawdziwy z Ciebie cudotwórca skoro potrafisz przerobić artykuł mający prawie 5000 bajtów na jeden krótki akapit. W którym nie ma słowa o:

• sposobie w jaki wybrano tę wersję BARa jako nowy rkm WP (i właściwie po co?).
• kłopotach z rozpoczęciem produkcji (problemach z dokumentacją licencyjną)
• rozwoju tej konstrukcji w Polsce (a jakieś prace prowadzono)

O takim drobiazgu że w oryginalnym artykule jest bibliografia, a akapicik w artykule o M1918 jest całkowicie nieuźródłowiony chyba już nie warto wspominać.

Po piąte. Nie mam pojęcia co WP:Firearms ustaliło ale czekam z niecierpliwością na integrację wszystkich artykułów o klonach AK, AR-15 czy ze starszych broni Gew.98. To dopiero będzie coś (po kilkaset wzorów broni na jednej stronie, obawiam się że mój komputer nie będzie w stanie tego przetworzyć). Wersji BARa było kilkadziesiąt. Z czego przynajmniej kilkanaście osiągnęło etap przyjęcia do uzbrojenia. Nie widzę sposobu żeby to upchnąć w jednym artykule bo albo potraktuje on temat pobieżnie, albo będzie zbyt długi. Do bzdur o nacjonalizmie nie będę się odnosił (byłem już faszystą/komunistą/etc/etc więc mogę być i nacjonalistą) bo już dawno zauważono że jak komuś brak argumentów merytorycznych to zaczyna obrażać interlokutora. I tyle dla mnie. Nemo5576 (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proponuje zintegrować z BARem FN MAG :) Ma on zamek z BARa (no trochę zmieniony, ale pomińmy drobiazgi). A tak serio, widziałeś kiedyś zdjęcie karabinu maszynowego obserwatora wz. 37? I wiesz jaki był zakres zmian konstrukcyjnych? Nowy magazynek (napędzany przez mechanizmy broni, a nie sprężyną), zmodyfikowane suwadło, zamek, komora zamkowa, nowy mechanizm spustowy, przeniesiona z kolby nad lufę sprężyna powrotna. Ty serio wiesz co robisz? A w właśnie mam zagadkę. Jak nazywają się dwie bronie które różnią się materiałem łoża (drewno/plastik), magazynka (metal/plastik) i długością kolby? Dla ułatwienia podpowiem że oba mają artykuł na en-wiki :) Ale ich integracja też byłaby bez sensu (nie są polskie więc to nie nacjonalizm):) Bardziej nacjonalistyczna jest następująca zagadka :) Co mają wspólnego AK-74 i kbk wz. 88 Tantal (podpowiem że więcej niż wz. 28 i wz. 37)? Nemo5576 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, czyli nie masz argumentu i tylko sie w tej chwili cynicznie sprzeczasz ze mna. Dobrze wiedziec, ulatwia mi to postepowanie z twoimi edycjami. Co do wz. 1937 skopiowalem prawie besposrednio, wiec pretensje co do zawartosci merytorycznej miej do autora, a nie mnie. Nie mam pojecia do czego sie odnosisz w drugiej czesci swojej dyletanckiej wypowiedzi, Polski to nie moj jezyk pierwotny wiec musisz sie wyrazac jasniej. Koalorka (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Czego nie mam :D? Dowcipniś z Ciebie :) Ja Ci pisze że konstruktor km wz. 37 wziął sobie konstrukcję rkm wz. 28 i w toku dalszych prac przekonstruował olbrzymią większość zespołów broni. W rezultacie otrzymał nową konstrukcję. Traktowanie obu tych wzorów broni jako wariantów świadczy o tym że nie masz pojęcia co robisz. A jeśli nie masz to zajmij się czymś na czym się znasz. Żebyś dokonując zmiany miał pojęcia o tym co robisz. A obie zagadki pozostają nadal nierozwiązane. W związku z pierwszą z nich podpowiem że konstruktor tej broni budując prototyp korzystał z komory zamkowej i mechanizmów starszego wzoru broni :) Inaczej mówiąc brał zdobyczne egzemplarze broni X i wyposażał je w nowe lufy innego kalibru (na marginesie z broni Y). Poddajesz się? Nemo5576 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nie widze takiego opisu na stronie wz. 37... Moze przydasz sie w koncu i aktualnie przyczynisz sie do czegos pozytecznego zamiast szyderstwa? W dalszym ciagu nie wiem do czego sie zwracasz, ale watpie zeby to bylo zwiazane z nasza dyskusja. Koalorka (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ułatwię :) To jest według Ciebie wersja BARa? Nadal uważasz że to na tyle zbliżone konstrukcje że należy opisać je w jednym artykule? A oczywiście uważam że mogę sobie z Ciebie pożartować :) W ten sposób traktuję Cię identycznie jak innych przedstawicieli Homo sapiens. A z tematem jest jak najbardziej związane. Próbujesz na siłę integrować artykuły o konstrukcjach w znaczny sposób zmodyfikowanych, a jednocześnie zostawiasz artykuły o broniach posiadających wymienne główne (AK-74 i kbk wz. 88), czy też praktycznie wszystkie (Vektor R4 i Galil ARM) podzespoły. A na marginesie to właśnie prototypy Galila były budowane z wykorzystaniem zdobycznych AK-47 (i surówek luf z M16). Izraelczycy kupili nawet na lewo w Finlandii dokumentację Valmeta M62 (następny klon AK ;)) żeby przyspieszyć rozpoczęcie produkcji Galila. No więc do dzieła :) Galil + Vektor + Valmety wkomponuj ślicznie do artykułu o AK-47 :) Aha, przestaje obserwować twoją stronę dyskusji, więc jeśli nadal będziesz tu odpisywał to niestety nie będę Ci mógł odpisać. Nemo5576 (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoro fachowa literatura opisuje wz. 37 jako wersje rozwojowa karabinu wz. 28 to chyba jednak cos maja wspolnego. A twoje osobiste interpretacje "wersji pochodnej" nie maja sie nijak z rzeczywistoscia. Wz. 37 to po prostu wersja lotnicza rkm'u wz. 28, thak jak M240D jest przystosowaniem lotniczym kaemu M240G. Przedstawie sytuacje czlonkom grupy. Koalorka (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Przy okazji. Skoro artykół ma być o wszystkich wersjach to Browning Automatic Rifle, a nie M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle. W końcu M1918 to tylko jedna z wersji BARa, więc niby dlaczego ma być jakoś szczególnie wyróżniona? Chyba że chodzi o jakiś amerykański nacjonalizm? Nemo5576 (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Poniewaz pod ta nazwa zostal przyjety bezposrednio po jego operacowaniu i badaniach kwalifikacyjnych, komercyjna nazwa produktu Browninga byla poczatkowo Browning Machine Rifle, a nie Browning Automatic Rifle, ale ze wzgledow praktycznych nazwanie artykulu BMR mija sie z celem. Koalorka (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Jak rozumiem badaniach kwalifikacyjnych przeprowadzonych przez US Army? A co te badania mają wspólnego z rkm wz. 28? Wersje komercyjne na pewno nie miały oznaczenia M1918, zresztą armia amerykańska używała także wersji M1922. Skoro artykuł ma być o wszystkich wersjach to niby czemu tytuł sugeruje ze jest o jednej? Zresztą patrząc jak na gigantyczne poparcie dla integracji moze po prostu warto to zostawić jak jest? Nemo5576 (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Przy okazji. Skoro artykół ma być o wszystkich wersjach to Browning Automatic Rifle, a nie M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle. W końcu M1918 to tylko jedna z wersji BARa, więc niby dlaczego ma być jakoś szczególnie wyróżniona? Zapytales sie, wiec i otrzymales odpowiedz. Armia Amerykanska uzywala rowniez wersji M1918A1 i A2, nie rozumiem Twojego toku rozumowania.. Poparcia nie ma, ale i glosow sprzeciwu rowniez nie ma. Poczekam jeszcze. Koalorka (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Firearm conversions

no need to shout :) sorry if i made a mistake, it would be more helpful if you show me exactly what i did wrong. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted your immediate attention before you went on with your edits. Like I previously said, we've established that the first conversion will use the full conversion template which provides a wikilink to the units involved. And this is provided for every type of unit. So the first in a series of conversions of mm to in will be wiki linked, then the first of the weight conversion will be wiki'd, muzzle velocity etc. The remaining values use the abbreviate template that does not link. You should also read up on the MOS:Hyphens, spaced en dashes are encouraged. Koalorka (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, i understand what you are saying, however the MOS seems to be saying the opposite. From WP:DASH:

Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; July 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but July–August 1940).

From WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked:

"Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided)."

-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

however in the spirit of compromise, if consensus had already been gathered that wikilinking the first instances of measurements in these articles was useful, there's no reason we can't add the |lk=on parameter to {{convert}}. :D -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

from this diff it would appear we are both right, i was right to change the first en dash, but not the second. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember discussing the dash/hyphen dilemma with someone and he pointed out a link within the MOS that follow the Chicago Manual of Style Guide which recommends using spaced en dashes... I'll try to find that link. Koalorka (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Found it here. Koalorka (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

however that link is not from the Wikipedia MOS, but from a wikipedia article :) However, it still follows the same logic - in the Beretta article it was not being used in running text, like in this sentence. It was separated off between commas.

"The en dash (always with spaces, in running text)..." -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Misr edits

Hi there, I noticed you revived an autonomous Misr page. It is a simple copy of the mid to later pattern Soviet AKM rifles. One of your referenced sources states: "The Maadi ARM (Automatic Rifle Misr) is an Egyptian copy of a late middle production Soviet AKM. The Maadi Company For Engineering Industries direct Kalashnikov production at "factory 54" in Cairo, the machinery and skills being obtained directly through the help of the Soviet Union. Thus, weapons produced here are very close copies of the AKM produced in Russia at the time the assembly line was placed into full service, with little changes made since then." I understand that you are proud of your ancestral nation's engineering achievements, but nationalism does not warrant an individual entry for each firearm ever produced under a license or technology transfer agreement. Koalorka (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Yes, your observation is correct and there should be a Misr page. This has nothing to do with pride of ancestral nation's engineering achievements or with nationalism as you were bold enough to presume and prejudge another wikipedian. As a matter of fact there is absolutly no achievement of manufacturing such a simple weapon, which is currently manufactered without license in the homes of palestinians and in the caves of terrorists in Afghanistan. It is simply in par with other variants of the same weapon that are manufactured under license with either slight variations or major modifications in other countries like Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Serbia, Hungaria and many others, some of whom have their pages in Wikipedia. Unless you decided to go on a crusade to abolish all these pages just because they are copies or variants or license built of the weapon in question and do not conform with what you perceive as a justified reason to create a page of a variant of a weapon. I do not think that you solely have the right to eradicate these pages just because of the above mentioned reasons.Orthopraxia (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:Variants, there are no grounds for the Misr to receive its own page. The AKM was built in dozens of countries at different points in time and the Egyptian Misr is a mere copy. Some Hungarian and Romanian variants have evolved to create significantly different firearms, and have a detailed and elaborate history. The Finnish SAKO models are dramatically different though obviously influenced by the Kalashnikov's design. Poland's AK's do not have their own separate page until the Tantal and Onyks models, which were derived through a separate development and procurement process. I am simply enforcing guidelines, but obviously some discretion is required as we seem to have different interpretations of what is a simple variant, resulting in a dispute every several days. The Misr is luckily just a straightforward copy. Koalorka (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I'm not familiar with "domestic" means of producing an AK; how exactly does one ream and rifle a barrel in a cave, how do you achieve the proper concentricity between the bore and the groove? How do the Palestinians gauge metallurgical qualities of their barrels? This sounds highly unlikely, or are you going on what you saw in poorly-presented report on gunsmiths in Afghanistan/Pakistan. The video depicted a person assembling a pre-manufactured Chinese Tokarev pistol and polishing it. That is not fabrication. Koalorka (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys stop it with the personal attacks? Koalorka; stop assuming that Orthopraxia is an Egyptian zealot. Orthopraxia; drop his accusation. Focus on the actual argument here. Are there any sources that detail the differences between the variant and the parent weapon, if any? You can both have a game of volleyball with your statements, but until you back them up we're not getting anywhere. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've explained the technical aspects as you may have noticed. Orthopraxia said "nuh uh" and kept on reverting. Koalorka (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He's explained right back. Neither of you are providing any sort of sources aside from your own statements. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

CPW

Hello. I apologise if I'm not using this talk function correctly. I edited the part about the CPW having a 'delay locked breech' because the term doesn't make sense. HK used to refer to roller-delayed blowback as roller-locked delayed blowback, but this is a historical misnomer stemming from the term 'roller-locked recoil operation' (see Roller-locked). Delayed blowback requires a movable breech block or bolt that can be blown back. If it was locked, then an outside force would be needed to unlock it (such as gas pressure or recoiling reaction force against the receiver). In all delayed blowback weapons, if you put a rod down the barrel, you can push the breech back freely - it is not locked in place. Do you see why I chose to make that edit? 19:31, 9 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

I understand, the problem is, we don't have a source to accurately describe what kind of system the CPW actually uses. If it uses high-pressure, high-velocity PDW ammo, the inertia of the bolt alone in a straight blowback system would not be enough to delay the unlocking sequence long enough to alleviate the gas pressure in the bore. So STK engineers must have used some kind of locked system. If you have a citation stating that is is straight blowback, I'll include it immediately. Koalorka (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not accurate. Gas and recoil operated weapons have locked breeches. In delayed blowback however, from the moment of ignition, the breech is being forced backward - it's merely slowed down compared to simple blowback. A mechanical disadvantage that merely slows the opening of the breech cannot reasonably be considered a locking mechanism. Whether the CPW uses rollers, levers, or any other mechanism to slow the breech opening, the fact remains that the breech cannot be said to be locked. The MP5, the G3, the FAMAS rifle - none have locked breeches. 19:31, 9 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

The issue is not my understanding of what constitutes a locked breech system (I'm aware of the misunderstanding arising from H&K's phraseology), but simply the lack of information available about the design. For all I know, it may well be like the MP7, gas operated with a rotating bolt... Koalorka (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears you were correct, the wording was inaccurate. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, it was corrected. Koalorka (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Rifling twist rates

Please note C.I.P. defines rifling twist rates (u = common rifeling twist rate) in mm. For a .308 Winchester cartridge C.I.P. defines u = 305.00 mm. A twist length notation like 1 in 305 mm is very unusual and legally even incorrect in C.I.P. regulated countries. Americans often write 1 in x.x inches or a x.x inch twist to describe twist rates. Technically better would be to express the twist rate in degrees or calibres (if the world could agree on using the grooves or lands diameter for this). Sadly in this case tradition prevails over engineering logic.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up as always. I was confused as Jane's literature seemed to have been using the latter format, but they've been known to divert from established standards and nomenclature. Koalorka (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sa_vz._58

Hi Koalorka The mentioned article has the top part of it cramped with images, tables and text, the lower section has just the text. I had moved the picture of "Image:Slovak_vz._58.jpg" further down to the section where would be perhaps more appropriate e.g. near "Variants" or "Users" and despite the other "Image:DM-SD-02-00646.JPEG" being high resolution it is in fact of a poor quality in regards to the article as it shows the weapon only partially , without the magazine, not to mention it is near impossible to recognize it in context with other soldiers pictured. Indeed how can one even confirm they, the soldiers are from the Slovak army, for all purposes they could be from the Czech army as well, if you read original description at the image page it describes them as Czech soldiers! Thats why I had removed it. Once again you show how you take ownerships of articles to the extreme. Perhaps I should next time obtain yours lordship permission first. I for want welcome Koalorka overlord !!! Heil Heil the leader. Stonufka (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Quit being so melodramatic, you know I follow an informal picture layout in the articles I edit; one image on the left showing a primary national user (could not find a Czech so I used the next best thing, a Slovak, haha) and the remaining photos on the right, not necessarily relating to the neighboring paragraphs. The image with the Slovak soldiers erecting a barrier is far from ideal but it's free and does in fact show the weapon in question at a high resolution. They are with no doubt Slovak service men since the photo was taken in 1996. I don't own the article, I just contributed more to it then anyone else... Good day. Koalorka (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, have not been called "melodramatic" before, hey extremely sarcastic yes , anyway I have no beef whether its Czech or Slovak persons pictured/mentioned, don't care less about that I just thought the layout could be improved a little ....showing photo next to neighboring text relevance ... I am for one a little more familiar with the weapon , used be my companion during time in service, the fun you can have with it ... keep up the good work Stonufka (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:German Navy Tornado.JPEG

Image:German Navy Tornado.JPEG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Tornado MFG1 landing RAF Mildenhall 1984.JPEG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Tornado MFG1 landing RAF Mildenhall 1984.JPEG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

I am wondering why you reverted the additions of the category "Military equipment of Mexico" made by an IP. As far as I can tell these were all valid edits as these are all weapons used by the Mexican armed forces. It doesn't look like vandalism to me. --Leivick (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly a form of vandalism. First, 90% of the weapons included in the category were not used by Mexico at any time and are not verifiable. Secondly, do you believe that every one of the 192 countries or autonomous states recognized by the UN should have a "Weapons of XXX military" category? You realize that if we were to entertain such a preposterous system, the category bar at the bottom of the page would likely be longer than the main body of text? Please use your imagination before calling my anti-vandal efforts into question. Koalorka (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand the hostility, but please take a look at the catagory explanation. It is meant to include weapons used by the Mexican military, which includes much of what you reverted, the M2 Browning as one example. If you don't like the category you can list it at categories for deletion, but if the category fits it should not be removed. There are also many similar catagories such as Weapons of Sweden and so forth which are identical in function to the Military equipment of Mexico cat. I do see what you mean that the IP has listed a huge number of apparently unrelated weapons on this category. --Leivick (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think the best solution would be to edit the catogory description so that it only refers to weapons built and designed in Mexico. --Leivick (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "Weapons of Sweden" category is perfectly fine since it includes those designs originating in Sweden, and that's what the Mexican category should be limited to. Notice how I have left actual Mexican-designed weapons in the cat. and removed all the imported foreign designs. Koalorka (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Military equipment of Mexico

I understand that you believe that the adding of the Category:Military equipment of Mexico is vandalism but if you simply look at the articles in question you will find that all of them are in fact actually used by the Mexican military so could you not remove them please.-- User:Veertlte

So you wish to create and index 192 "Military equipment of XXX" categories? Do you realize how impossible, unpractical and inaccurate of a task that would be? The reasonable solution is to continue what we have been doing so far, limiting the category to designs originating from Mexico. Koalorka (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tavor

The ITL MARS is also not necessarily supplied with TAR, but it is considered as "original" sight for Tavor. Same with STAR - ACOG is the "original" sight. Flayer (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

HK-13

So far you have done a great job with the HK-21 page. Unfortunantly there is very little data on the HK-13 light machinegun. We are directed to the HK-21 page yet the HK-13 was origionally a heavy barreled G-33 acording to the literary sources for the hk-21 page. I'm currently trying to get the time to look through some 1960's to 1970's firearms guides in order to get better information on the earlier HK machinegun designs. As for current information I have yet to confirm it with a reliable source but it appears that the HK-13E and the HK-23E are a merged design. Just trying to help as it's a pretty good article so far. Paulwharton (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of {{tooshort}} tag

Hi,

I've reworked the P90 article, including adding to the intro. In future, please don't remove cleanup tags without doing the work - gun articles don't have an exemption from basic MoS compliance, and removing tags just makes it harder for copyeditors to flag potential issues for later work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire page was MoS compliant. And please discuss the introduction of drastic changes on the P90 talk page. Koalorka (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, though I fail to see how any of this is controversial, and it's disappointing that you've chosen to revert rather than constructively point to guidelines backing up your argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you remove huge chunks of text, re-arrange it in strange ways and reformat the entire infobox that is alien to what the WP has determined as a standard that will alert the editors. And the P90 is so contentious because every airsoft wannabe and Stargate goof feels the need to contribute something. I'm forced to revert the non-helpful changes to the infobox. Koalorka (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, are you asserting that I am an "airsoft wannabe" or a "Stargate goof" for these changes? This seems to be remarkable act of bad faith. You certainly aren't forced to revert anything, and if you feel that you are then it would seem high time that you reassessed how closely you monitored this particular article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I just described why the article is monitored more heavily than others. Assuming the assumption of bad faith is bad faith. Koalorka (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to turn this back on me; I evidently acted on good faith in going to discussion here.

This edit asserts that I am using "deprecated formats". Which of those edits is "deprecated"? Where's the guideline that says so? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to educate you on policy, additionally, there are WP:MILHIST and WP:Firearms SOPs that contradict many general MoS guidelines, so unless you are intimately familiar with all three and how they interact with one another in an article, I wouldn't recommend attempting to reshape the stylistic landscape. Argue your case on the WP page, if successful, you can then proceed to reformat the 600 or so pages. Koalorka (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not attempting to "reshape the stylistic landscape". I expect that you will present concrete examples of the issues you have on the article talk page, rather nebulous references to a handful of guidelines which I have read and found no issue with. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

LAF as user of Minimi

Hello, You have undone my modification in which i included Lebanon as an operator for the FN Minimi Have a look at these photos

1. Photo one
2. Photo two

Please when you see the source and find them okay, undo you chages Thank you --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 21:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Have a look here

Thanks --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 08:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have no way of identifying which nationality the soldiers in your images belong to. We need a published source for the information, not a few randomn photos, but I will retain Lebabon on the list so long as you can find that source in a realistic amount of time. Koalorka (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, these soldiers are from the Lebanese Navy SEALs, these photos are available on the Lebanese Army pictures thread on MP.net, the largest thread on the internet featuring Lebanese army photos... --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dude", it doesn't matter. Go see what is considered a source in Wikipedia. Koalorka (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

mm I can't find a document with the LAF equipment in details, the only sources for us are the photos because the Lebanese Army does not publish such details. Many operators in the list are not referenced btw. What do you suggest??? thank you:) --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 09:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We will retain Lebanon on the list of users based on those photos and attempt to find a source. Koalorka (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you:)--Zaher1988 · ^Talk 19:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued attacks

Despite my request for a calmer discussion (along with the rather forceful page protection) you have decided to continue behaving in an inappropriate way. Maria is not a troll, she merely has a different interpretation of this from you. If you continue, you will be blocked. Note that I am looking into your accusations of sockpuppetry. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, even if the IP is a sock a Maria, then it makes no difference in terms of 3RR, so I am not willing to take action. If you want to pursue this, file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I'm leaving for the night now. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, discussion correct? I did that, I started a discussion on the image suitability and did nothing further. Well did you happen to notice that MariaLopes went ahead and did a mass revert on any remaining images? Did that somehow elude you? Where's the warning on her page? Did you also fail to notice the series of sock accounts used to revert the disputed pages? Please do your job, or direct me to someone that can handle a dispute like this. Koalorka (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My job is to sell books. I'm a volunteer here like you. I have, as I explained, reviewed the sockpuppet accusation, and, as I also explained, left, because I wanted to watch a film and did not believe it was worth following up at this time. I also find Maria's reverting over several pages concerning, but what do you want/expect me to do about it? This is a comparatively minor issue. If Maria in turn refuses to engage in conversation, then yes, we have a problem, but she is not, she is happy to discuss this with you. This is not worth taking to any of the noticeboards of yet. Try to look at it from Maria's point of view- you have come out of nowhere and removed several images she has uploaded, replacing them with what she sees as inferior images. She is just getting back to the status quo, believing that the burden of proof is upon you. Stop screaming for blood, and just discuss the issue. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the sockpuppet report you filed to the list of open cases, as you seemed to forget to. J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Peiper photo!!

Please, stop changing the photo in this thread. I have written large portion of this article and included this excellent photo of Peiper... It is one of the best known originals by Hoffmann, which appeared in 100s of magazines and publications. You are welcome to included your photo elsewhere in the article, but removing images of others is vandalism... Another change will likely result in the suspension of your editing privileges. regards, maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo is a poor portayal of the man himself that's why I introduced a portait-type image. Youa are welcome to use your image in the text below. Koalorka (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Joachim Peiper. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

• • • This is the second time you changed my image. According to my colleagues, you also changed their revisions in the Peiper's article 3 and 2 times. That is the seventh time you did this and therefore were reported to administrators!! The original image by Hoffmann was in this thread since 2004. I reloaded it in 2008. The photo has higher resolution than yours by a mile - 600dpi to yours 72dpi. It is made on special high quality paper and therefore it appears as if it had ripples on it. However, it is absolutely arrogant and downright wrong to change photos in the articles in this fashion. I contacted an administrator for help in this matter. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I have reverted to the rightful image 3 times. Others made the other revisions!! Maybe you should learn to count properly!! Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • The burden of proof is on you. Actually, I was alerted to your changes by a friend of mine and only the past two reverts are mine. Another one I asked a friend of mine to make. That is 3. If you were smarter, you could see from the IP addresses that the changes were made in different countries... and as much as I enjoy Wikipedia, I would not go abroad to edit it. The vandalism report was made - good luck!!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see this comment, and take the dispute to the article talk page. Please lay off the accusations, and discuss the matter in a civil, scholarly way. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

VHS assault rifle

Why the revert on VHS assault rifle? These were good faith edits... GregorB (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but very poor quality edits. Koalorka (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well... It appears that it was all copied verbatim from the source, and this source is definitely WP:RS. Could still be copyedited. Apart from that, "rotating breech head" is a novel term to me (still, I'm not really a firearms expert). GregorB (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Koalorka (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Steyr M

I saw you worked a lot on the Steyr M article. I moved 2 Steyr M images from Wiki EN to Wiki Commons in Category:Steyr M. I think a bot will eventually take care of the images left in Wiki EN, since some automatic messages where generated during the transfer. You will see a "new" image of an original Steyr M9 in the Steyr M article. Maybe you want to use this image in the infobox.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a better image no doubt, but I believe it has already been removed once since the uploader is unlikely to be the author, it appears to be from Steyr promotional material. It will probably be removed again once reviewed in Commons, but let's keep it for now. Koalorka (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought the project was dead, last I checked

Fair enough, holding off. The category (and many others under Firearms) is over-packed and under-sorted, but if there's a set plan to recategorize I'm certainly open to it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It maybe crowded, but smaller national categories already exist for most nations. Besides, most countries have fewer then 2 indigenous firearms, making long empty lists very impractical. Koalorka (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste move of Walther PPK

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Walther PPK a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Walther PP. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. David Pro (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. David Pro (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't recently, and you'll notice that I've been using the Requested Moves page ever since. Koalorka (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RK 95

Hi, I changed this description to say LONG STROKE gas piston. you undid this rev and commented that "this is definately not a short stroke system" The article appears to still say short stroke.

According to the "gas operated" article, a long stroke system is one where the piston is attached to the bolt carrier. The picture of the guts shows this to be an attached piston, just like the AK. Where is the disconnect here?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.220.108 (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect, a long-stroke system is defined by the length of travel of the piston, not its method of attachment to the bolt carrier... I will correct the article to say "long stroke". Koalorka (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

M249

The USA were not involved in the deveopment of the aweapon. They requested designs with specific requirements and tested them. The Minimi was the best and was accepted. Also please refrain from calling me a troll. And I would appreciate you changing the colour or removing the orange bar at the top of this page. Fo a seccond I thought i had nmessages.--Patton^t/c 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you have no idea actually. The Minimi is a scaled down version of a 7.62mm design originally proposed by FN, then modified according to test results and feedback from the US. Get your facts straight before you engage in an edit war. Koalorka (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? None of the ones in the article say anything about a 7.62mm design. They say the US army was originally looking for a 6mm weapons but then accepted the 5.56mm minimi because a new cartridge would put greater strain on logistics.

There was a great source for that in the old Mk 48 Mod 0 article before it got merged into the M249 article by a certain contributor. --D.E. Watters (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any sources in that article.--Patton^t/c 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see it just fine in the References section. There is a link to a Small Arms Review article on the Mk 48 Mod 0. In the same issue, there was an article on the original 7.62mm Minimi prototypes. Exactly a year later, SAR had a follow up article on the Mk 48. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons" says that the US just requested designs and made only a few minor modifications. That hardly counts as designing.--Patton^t/c 15:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying that the US was involved in what would become the M249, including, crucially, the choice of cartridge, which was the 62 gr. SS109 developed specifically for this program and then later adopted by NATO. Koalorka (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the US sponsored FN's development of heavy ball cartridges (the SS92/1, SS101, and SS109). At the time of the NATO Trials, the US was pushing for adoption of the 5.56mm XM777 Ball and XM778 Tracer. These could still be used in a 1/12" twist barrel, and thus, would not require rebarreling of the M16A1 already in service. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent info. Koalorka (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright?

Perhaps you would kindly explain to me HOW to create a copywright so the pictures I uploaded can stay here. I am new here.

Dear moron, you do not "create" a copyright, you either need to be the owner of the image or have an explicitly stated permission from the owner to be able to upload the images. Your uploads were removed because the images were obviously not yours and you had no permission to use them. You continue doing that, you will be banned. Koalorka (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then HOW THE FUCK DO I GET PERMISSION KOALA BOY?

You are jeapordizing your status here with persistent vulgarism, hostility and incvility. There are guidelines you can follow that will tell you everything you need to know, sadly, that requires a bit of effort. Koalorka (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine I quit. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And you say I'm going to be reported but yet you already said I am being reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And exactly what are the "magnificent" benefits of being a wookipedia member? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And you didn't answer my question. Mabybe you should lighten up and try to help me so we can both diffuse this little situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The situation you failed to prevent. The introduction template on your talk page for one provides a host of links you can follow that will help you as a novice editor. Koalorka (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka, your comments to Josh Woolstenhulme are not in keeping with our civility policy and are perfect examples of WP:BITE. If you can't bring yourself to interact professionally and helpfully with new editors, don't interact with them at all. Attacks, incivility, and general hostility to newcomers will result in blocks just as quickly as copyright violations. - auburnpilot talk 14:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool story brah. Koalorka (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i don't know how you addressing a newbie as dear moron, and then threatening him with a block could help anything. it'd be better to gain new editors, not lose them. auburn pilot wasn't telling you a "cool story," he was telling you what needs to be said. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion. Thank you for your comment. Koalorka (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not opinion, it's a fact. Failure to abide by policy and inherited guidelines will result in a block. These are your only warnings you'll receive. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Mr. Abuse of policy toward new editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me one reason to listen to a moron like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, I actually gave you pointers on how to start and you've done nothing but throw crude insults at me. Two, don't upload those images again without permission from their owners, don't waste our time, having several people tied down to clean up after you. Koalorka (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides Theserialcomma told me about abusive people like you. I'll just keep trying until I eventually get it right. And I will get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

and actually you gave me no pointers at all. You have done nothing to help. You've gotten in trouble your self so I would worry more yourself that wasting time trying to "help" me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive, nothing further from the truth. I wouldn't listen to Serialcoma, he/she has been involved in a lot of controversy, you don't want to get aligned with the wrong type of people. You can upload images so long as you have permission to do so or are the author, I would love to be able to use the images that you provided for our purposes, unfortunately, it's not that simple. Trouble, myself? LOL, no, coma is just butthurt he/she was contradicted by the community everywhere he/she "edited". Coma's activities are what we call trolling, no content contributed, just hollow threats and drama. Users like that are best avoided. Koalorka (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like you really are going to get into alot of trouble by insulting other users like that.Josh Woolstenhulme (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, looks like you got banned for theft of copyrighted media. My status here is the least of your worries. Koalorka (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Image size

Thanks for the heads up I was not aware of that Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome and reference to the WikiProject Firearms page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewYorkCityPhilanthropy (talk • contribs) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Winged Brick / Nukes4Tots / Asams10 sockpuppetry

thank you for notifying Asams10. you could notify Nukes4Tots too, if you wish. By the way, you should check the newest evidence against Nukes4Tots before calling me names like 'agitator'. it's really uncalled for, especially given the evidence i've presented Theserialcomma (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment on Nukes, but attempting to implicate another seemingly randomn editor in your assault on the WP:Firearms community betrays your malevolence. Therefore, agitator is an accurate description, your activities would best be described as pervasive vagrancy. You've engaged in a senseless match of wit with 5 or so editors only to achieve absolutely nothing and withdraw in somekind of confused defiance. You then stalked everyone that contested your silliness. If you're not trolling, I really have to question your intelligence. Koalorka (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

we'll see how random he is after i submit the rest of the evidence, then you can apologize for being rude and failing to assume good faith Theserialcomma (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to assume my good faith is bad faith. Koalorka (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

signature

For some reason a edit that you apparently made to Talk:RK 95 TP says I made it. do you know why that is?

You might want to start signning your posts if you want any sort of response. I just noticed that the comments were made a year ago. How bizarre of you to bring it up now... Koalorka (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello. I hope I am not disturbing you but I wanted to ask you why my images of firearms keep getting reverted. Do they not meet the Wikipedia standards somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominick1283 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No Josh, they don't meed Wikipedia standards, because they are not your images. Also, sock-puppetry is a serious offense. Koalorka (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You are accusing me for a person I do not know!!! I AM NOT THIS PERSON!!! It makes no difference. You guys won't listen anyway. I'll just go kill my self then. Will that please you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominick1283 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka, I know you were interested in this. You might have missed it since the pot was poisoned and the first investigation was reported, I resubmitted and both Dominick1283 and the Sock IP were banned indefinitely. See here: [6] Thanks for your efforts on this one. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrections

Sorry, my bad. I didn't notice you were actively engaged in a rewrite. I'll hold off. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

threats of physical violence

your 'joke' about drilling a hole in my skull read like a threat of physical violence to me. i removed it once and you added it back. i ask that you remove it yourself, or i will report you for threatening physical violence. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is the discretion of the Arbitration Commitee that will determine if the procedure is to be done or not. Kidding aside, you chose to interpret it as a threat, which it clearly isn't, so if you have a problem with it, go cry to an admin again. And don't ever modify or remove my comments again, no matter what the content. Koalorka (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Several of your recent comments, including the one cited above, are clearly incivil. If you persist in leaving veiled personal attacks like this, you may in the future be blocked for this behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, a thread to discuss this comment, and others, has been started at WP:ANI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka, please take this conversation seriously. They threatened to slap me with a trout: [7]. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Based on this edit [8] and prior warnings to stop this sort of personal attack, I have blocked you for a few days. Please comment on the content, not the editors. You seem interested in pushing the boundaries and testing to find how much you can get away with. Well, you won't get away with this sort of thing. Please cease this. If you continue this when the block expires, you will be blocked again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool story bro. Koalorka (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You might note that this resulted from canvassing, not from this particular admin keepin an eye on you. Check the following diff if you haven't seen it already; [9]. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why naturally, it was expected of the troll. What I didn't expect was the surprisingly punitive response from the apparently malleable and novice admin that blocked me. If I cared enough, I would probably report both, but I couldn't be bothered, I don't suffer from vaginitis. Someone does however need to ventilate the pervasive odor of troll that lingers over the project and threatens to halt any further progress. Koalorka (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, this conversation is being watched, however it was suggested that if Theserialcomma has been engaging in a disruptive pattern of behavior, that behavior may be addressed directly through the noticeboards. Of course, that would mean dozens of difs to show the dozens of rules he's violated in both spirit (3RR, Edit Warring) and fact, Hounding, Trolling, Forum Shopping, etc. It seems that there is a tendancy among those that responded to this ANI to believe that TSC has been engaging in disruptive behavior. I'd say something else, but I think that would be considered a personal attack in the current atmosphere. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka, ranting on about it and making personal attacks is what people with vaginanitis do. Egos will get you nowhere here. Simply saying sorry and forgetting it is the way forward; it's quite hard to do though, isn't it? That's because it takes a real man to do it, not some pussy who just keeps smacking a dead horse.--Your friend and fellow firearms editor, Patton^t/c 19:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Truly inspiring. Who are you and where's my apology then? Koalorka (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning for ongoing behavior

I value your contributions to Wikipedia firearms articles a lot. I understand about the frustration you're seeing with many editors who are less informed, or who vandalize the articles.

However, you've pushing too far and abusing our policy on editing in a civil manner and not making personal attacks. You just got blocked for one set of that, and yet are right back with things like this edit summary where you refer to an anon editor who vandalized as "intellectually challenged".

There's no need to call people names. They vandalized - note the vandalism and correct it. Insulting them or being nasty to them undermine Wikipedia's community and are destructive to the project. That's why we have policies against doing that.

Please stop it with the abusive behavior against others. You've done this to a lesser extent for a long time. We're getting more strict about the policy over the last couple of months, and you have at the same time gotten somewhat nastier in your comments. That's terrible timing. You need to calm down and edit in a more cooperative and friendly manner - both in comments on wiki and edit summaries. If you keep pushing buttons and abusing people then I or other admins will be forced to block again. I don't want to do that - you do a tremendous amount of good work on the wiki. However, the abusive behavior is destructive too, and the community has decided that enough is enough.

Please chose moderating your behavior over being forced to leave.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

German machineguns

• See Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Incomplete_and_contested_proposals. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you undo my Austrian police entry with the Glock page?

I live here so I think I should know quite a bit better than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.82.61 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim. Koalorka (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here... http://www.polizeisammler.de/berichte/austria/2005/neueuniform-fahrzeuge.jpg clearly visible is the polymer grip of the Glock. No other pistol has a grip like that. They are produced here in Austria anyway, so why would they use something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.82.61 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not question the fact, I am simply asking your for a proper reference. A Photograph is not a proper reference. Möglicherweise verstehen Sie mich besser auf englisch? Koalorka (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See I can give you 100s of references, but the "proper" ones are in German anyway. http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg15-e.htm http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-926.html http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/glock17.htm We could also just accept the fact that it is like that and leave it in there. You need references for statements, not obvious things. Like if I said, the president had an affair with Michael Jackson, that would need a reference. There is no need for you to play the wiki police if the things that are put in here are common knowledge among people who live in that country and there is no doubt it is that way. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

The president had an affair with Michael Jackson? Creepy. Actually, there is a reason to doubt entries. It is because the vast majority of them are not verifiable. Wikipedia is not about fact, it is about verifiability. I do not find it dubious at all that the federal police in Austria would use the Glock. So, produce a reference of some sort and re-insert it. It's that simple. If it's not verifiable, it doesn't need to be there. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about INFORMATION. And information, which is common knowledge doesn't need further "proof". Sorry, some people just seem to build their ego on being the Wiki GeStaPo in here, it's ridiculous. (talk)

Oh and btw... I can also just link to the German Wikipedia if you two Officers would like that... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespolizei_(%C3%96sterreich) Oh.... what's this? The Glock it is... Stop deleting poeple's entries if you don't know if it's wrong... if you have no idea about the topic, just don't do ANYTHING to the page. (talk)

I don't remove reasonable unsourced information. I reverted your edit because it was sloppy and poorly integrated. You've made a lot of effort to argue your case here, put the same effort into your edits. Koalorka (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:L85A1 SA80.JPEG

File:L85A1 SA80.JPEG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:DM-SD-98-00176.JPEG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:DM-SD-98-00176.JPEG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Luftwaffe Tornado.JPEG is now available as Commons:File:Tornado ECR JaBoG 32 1997.JPEG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FX-05

Stop removing factual information if you cannot disprove it. First of all ask yourself this:

Are you Mexican? Are you a part of the Mexican Armed Forces? Have you ever read a data sheet on the FX-05, at least?

Since you cannot answer 'yes' to any of these questions and I can, I am entitled to provide the world with factual information about the FX-05. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehefer (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be removing speculative trash. Provide a valid reference for your claims. Koalorka (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

no personal attacks.

i modified a message of yours by removing a personal attack that you made. [[10]]. do not add it back or you may be blocked. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It won't be your call whether I am blocked or not. Your action gives me a blanket release to go through your history and modify your messages in order to remove uncivil comments. Koalorka (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Swiss MoD images

I hope you like the Mediathek VBS images. Please always look if a picture you want to use is marked “Nutzung: freie Nutzung” so it is free to use. Not all Mediathek VBS images are marked “Nutzung: freie Nutzung” and those might lead to problems when used in Wikipedia.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes good call, I did notice that and made sure all the photographs I uploaded were marked "free use". We can finally give the SG 550 page some decent media. Koalorka (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

SIG SG 550

"→Users: the third "revert" was just me editing the Users section.) (undo)"

That kind of means my last edit wasn't a revert. But you have done three undos as well.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You've removed the image 3 times, that is edit warring and a violation of the 3RR no matter how you look at it. What exactly is your problem with that image in that article that you've never previously contributed anything to? Koalorka (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NO...MORE than 3 times is the violation. You can hardly see the Firearm in question on the small, hard-to-see image.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you care? 2 days ago the page had almost no images and you didn't bother to improve the article in any way. Your opinion has been noted but is hardly conclusive. I counted 4 edits that you made to remove the image, including IP 88.109.166.218 which is obviously you. Koalorka (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not my IP address. Though I guess you're just another Nukes4Tots clone, fore shame. -- OsirisV (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My IP address is "86.158.54.123"-- OsirisV (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, do tell, why the sudden interest in this article? Koalorka (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. I would just like to make it clear that I am not related to these three or four other editors removing the submerged diver image. However, I do believe it has very little value for the SG 550 article. Perhaps it would be more suitable for the Military of Switzerland article—although, in my opinion, the quality of the image isn't the best, which is unusual considering how often you remove crappy images uploaded by other editors. Hayden120 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree in principle. I believe it's interesting, but not necessary for the article... but that's not the point of the reversion I made. I made the reversion because of principle. Wikipedia is about making edits. If the edit (removal of the picture that was the status quo) is disputed, leave it the way it was and take it to talk to come to a consensus. Assuming no consensus is reached, the status quo remains. The status quo IS the consensus. If it's been there a while, it's a consensus. Not sure if that was the case here... don't care. I didn't like the edit warring. Looked to me like the guilty party was using his IP as a sock to avoid the 3rr, so I helped out on principle. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The submerged diver image had only been placed in the article a day or two ago, so it hardly was the status quo. What I'm wondering is what caused the sudden interest in the article. Hayden120 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Place it in the gallery, problem solved. Koalorka (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How does moving it from one place to another solve the problem? The article's subject is the SG 550 rifle (only the barrel is visible in the photograph), not the Swiss Army. Hayden120 (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I placed it in the gallery for neutrality, (see my edit here) but it seems Nukes4Tots has reverted it claiming that the image *somehow* doesn't work. I guess this argument is gonna last a while longer.-- OsirisV (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the image is really relevant in the SG 550 article, you can barely identify that the rifle in the photo is a SG 552. And Nukes, don't know if you noticed but the image wasn't even in the article for a day before being challenged, which is hardly status quo. — DP5 14:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this poor image has created such an impasse. I wish everyone was this engaged when it actually comes to contributing new information... Koalorka (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hy

But that main picture I added is my work. I photographed with my camera,then only edited in photoshop. By —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majesticcryx (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's highly unlikely... You had Slovenian soldiers pose for you? Koalorka (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch UMP

What do you mean, “completely destroyed the coding?” All I did was delete to sentence, I do not know how I could have screwed up the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanislao Avogadro (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but your edit did very strange things to the page. Koalorka (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

“Chocolate sprinkles”

I just wanted to say, that was a pretty good comment. Really made the point.71.34.68.186 (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)A. REDDSON

Image copyright problem with File:Stepanov AKS-74Us.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Stepanov AKS-74Us.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Scar Photo

Nice pictuer of the end of the SCAR buttstocks. You did, however, remove the only picture in the article of the SCAR-H model. On the same site you got your photo from, there's another photo of the full rifle, though it's not very good detail: [11]. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated the SCAR-H model, and the SEAL photo, thoug not ideal, is likely one of the first published photographs of the weapon in service. Koalorka (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

SCAR

It has been done before. See Future Force Warriors Info box.

Username 1 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in a firearms article it hasn't. And it won't. Koalorka (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the HK G3 article? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Those were done that way in the image itself (although it looks like some of the image was cut off to bring them together in the space available) and are both to scale. The addition of the to images together on the SCAR article was bad because the two are of different sizes in real life, but were squeezed into the same size in the infobox, which puts things out of scale in a bad way.--LWF (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Koalorka (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

TKIV

Hi, Koalorka. I moved your proposal to the "contested" section, since the move was proposed back in Sept. 2008 (I actually closed it as "no move", but I don't have an opinion one way or the other). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Stoner 63 vs. Rodman SAW

I see you are repeating Peter Kokalis' story about the Stoner 63's rejection by the Army in favor of the Rodman SAW. The problem is that this didn't happen in 1963. Rodman Laboratory didn't get into small arms design until the responsibility was transferred from Springfield Armory prior to the latter's closure in 1968. Moreover, design work didn't begin on the 6mm SAW cartridge until late 1971, and the cartridge's specifications weren't finalized until May 1972. WECOM was testing the Stoner 63 on behalf of the USMC as late as September 1971, and the USMC didn't give up on it until December of the same year. --D.E. Watters (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, Mr. Kokalis best check his dates. Why then were the Ordnance people prejudiced against the Stoner system? What led to the dismissal? Koalorka (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We really don't know how much of the prejudice was real, imagined, or invented. For instance, in the fall of 1964, AMC General Counsel Kendall Barnes discussed potential licensing rights for the Stoner 63 with Cadillac Gage president Frederick Bauer. That is pretty odd behavior if the Army was actively trying to avoid adopting it. However, the USMC was certainly not shy about claiming the Army was prejudiced against the Stoner. Within days of the first Barnes/Bauer meeting, the Marines' vocal complaints led to the Army being pressured by the DOD to initiate the Small Arms Weapon Systems (SAWS) study (not be be confused with the later Squad Automatic Weapon trials). All of the variants of the Stoner were featured prominently during the SAWS trials, which ran from 1965 to 1966. The gas port pressure mismatch between M193 loaded with Ball powder and M196 loaded with IMR was never solved. Yet, everything else has seemed to cope with it since then. Perhaps the USMC gave up on the Stoner in 1971 because they had been funding its RDT&E for eight years with no payoff in sight. With the Army launching the Squad Automatic Weapon program and the spectre of tightening service budgets in the Vietnam drawdown, it had to be really tempting for the USMC brass to let the Army foot the entire bill for the SAW's RDT&E. While I don't dispute that the Army was hoping for a SAW in something other than 5.56mm, it seems unlikely that they sabotaged the Stoner specifically in favor of the Rodman SAW. The USMC contract with Cadillac Gage was cancelled months before Rodman (or anyone else) could have ever produced a 6mm SAW prototype. --D.E. Watters (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: The port pressure conflict between M193 (loaded with Ball powder) and M196 (loaded with IMR) couldn't have surfaced before April 28, 1964 at the earliest, as the US Army didn't approve WC846 powder for use with Army-issue M193 until then.

The 1965 SAWS report from the US Army Infantry Board indicated that prior to the SAWS trials, the Army had only conducted military potential tests of the Stoner 63 on behalf of ARPA. At the same time, the USMC had conducted its own service and troop tests of the Stoner 63. According to the USAIB report, the Army's pre-SAWS testing had indicated that the Stoner 63 MG was marginal in operating power and deficient in barrel life. However in November 1964, the Army Materiel Command ordered the Army Test & Evaluation Command to initiate engineering and service tests of the Stoner 63. However, the planning for these tests were postponed in order to coordinate them with the requirements of the SAWS trials ordered by the Army Chief of Staff. (The USAIB was subordinate to TECOM, which itself was subordinate to the AMC.)

In their 1966 SAWS program report, Combat Developments Command Experimentation Command specifically blamed many of the Stoner 63 MG's malfunctions on the port pressure conflict, as well as a batch of defective belt links and insensitive primers. (CDCEC was not part of the AMC. As the name implies, it was part of the Combat Developments Command, which was on equal footing with the AMC and the Continental Army Command.)

According to the 1968 "Report of the M16 Rifle Review Program - Volume 11," the Army's Assistant Chief of Staff for Force Development submitted a fact sheet to the Army Chief of Staff in September 1964. In the fact sheet, Army Weapons Command had claimed that the Stoner 63 family had insufficient barrel life, weak belt pull, stock breakage while launching grenades, insufficient operating energy under adverse conditions, and unreliable tracer functioning in the machine gun. (WECOM was part of the AMC.) The same 1968 report states that in January 1968, the Army Chief of Staff wrote to the USMC Commandant agreeing to a joint testing program for the Stoner 63 MG.

All three of these reports should still be available for free download through DTIC, although they may no longer display the download links. If you run a search for the XM207 on Google Books, you can find references to it in congressional appropriation hearings running through FY71. (Oddly, they only give a snippet view. It isn't as though the hearing transcripts could be copyrighted.) The timeline for the final USMC/AMC tests of the Stoner 63 are covered in the 1972 GAO report "Need for Improved Financial Management in Use of Project Orders by the Department of the Army". It wasn't solely about the Stoner 63, nor did it specifically ID the system as the Stoner 63. But seriously, how many rifle/carbine/MG families existed during the late '60/early '70s that were also being tested by the AMC on the USMC's tab? This report was also available online at one point from the GAO website. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

CETME L Development

FWIW: The CETME L first appeared in the 1977 edition of Jane's Infantry Weapons. Odds are, CETME started development before then. They are known to have started SCHV rifle research in the early 1960s, and collaborated with HK on the 4.6x36mm. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, they had been developing a short cartridge version of the Model C since the mid-70s. I'll amend the intro. Koalorka (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, would you happen to have in your posession any literature confirming official Spanish service dates for the type? I've got a series of conflicting sources. Koalorka (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I'll check. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

MPM's pics on Wikipedia

Well, he takes the images specifically for IMFDB, but I showed him a watermark design I built (see the Series 70 1911 picture on his page). The only image he released on here was a CETME 5.56mm MG42 design, but I personally prefer my watermark over the one he used for that image. I'll see what he says, but I think he would prefer if his images stay on IMFDB. - Gunmaster45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Douglas A-20 caption

Hi K, the way I usually punctuate a caption written as a sentence is to apply full punctuation; if the caption is a statement or is a fragmentary sentence or non-sentence, then, it is not treated as a sentence. FWiW, the caption in the aforementioned article does not have a verb, but it can be re-written as a sentence. Bzuk (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

help

well i m here asking for help i m new to wikipedia n dont knw many of the rules. what i edited in those articals were lines which were anit-indian in an artical about india n those lines carried referances from pakistan based websites if not edited by user with name Zuhayer171288 whom i find vadalising indian articals perticularly about indian army/system.I request you to please go through all the articals reading each and every line which i edited before you jump to conclusion wheather those edits should be reverted or not and wheather i should be reported or not. one more thing i find you to be from canada with interest in USA,Germany and serbia, will you consider referances from a russian or chinese websites in a USA related artical to be neutral? or referances from polish or dutch websites in artical about germany or german national football(soccer) team to be neutral? or referances from albanian or croatian websites in a serbian artical to be neutral, I guess your answer will be a big no similarly how can you consider referances from a pakistani website in an india related artical to be neutral?I hope you got my point and ll look up into this.(Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

This has nothing to do with India. The Arjun is a failed design and many Indian editors refuse to accept the project's many failures and mishaps out of nationalistic pride. Koalorka (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koalorka. You have new messages at Talk:M249 squad automatic weapon.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Patton^t/c 22:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Lunde SR9 Green Frame.jpg

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Lunde SR9 Green Frame.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[12][13]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:AirForce M249.jpg listed for deletion on Wikimedia Commons

An image or media file that you uploaded locally, File:AirForce M249.jpg, which was transferred to the Wikimedia Commons, has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. Please see the discussion to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Wikimedia Commons is a central repository for freely licensed media used by all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia. Please be aware that policies on Commons are different than what is used on Wikipedia, including rules only allowing images that can be used for any purpose, and that images must be free or in the public domain in the United States and its country of origin (if different). File:AirForce M249.jpg Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC) --Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Army's Weapons Inventory

• I have no idea what you are talking about, try elaborating a little further. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide sources documenting Mexico's national weapon inventories. Koalorka (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Lunde SR9 Green Frame.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Lunde SR9 Green Frame.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Laser brain (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)