User talk:MichaelPeiper0331

@BilCat - (as requested by you in your talk page, I am communicating with you here on the actual talk page of the article revision in question) Regarding your edit - 06:29, 17 November 2018‎ BilCat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,492 bytes) (-7,792)‎ . . (Undid revision 869218785 by MichaelPeiper0331 (talk) actually, reliable secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia per WP:RS, especially if they generally involve some level.of fact-checking; also, the new "format" is completely incompatible with Wikipedia, which prefers the bulk of the content to in paragraphs and sections) (undo | thanked) Thank you for your input. I do believe that overall the previous version of the article needed to be improved upon for the primary reason that it lacked proper sources references. As well as being confusing due to ambiguity as to the variants of M829 cartridges, their technical specifications, use, and development - as well as containing errors in fact regarding the variants current deployment and procurement, . The article lacks photos to show the differences in ammunition variants, as well as technical specifications, and the article is generally confusing and jumps around without providing little in the way of facts for the researcher in terms of conciseness, clarity, and ease of reference.

Furthermore, that it may well be the sources themselves cited in use for reference to the prior article's version, or that the interpretation of the source information by the author is inaccurate, they are not primary. In either case, the sources cited in the revised article posted by me are sourced from the pdf articles, which are made available in the public domain and for unlimited redistribution by authorization from the Department of Defense, and are directly according to the manufacturer of the M829 cartridge without interpretation. Please review the references provided in my article version for the M829.

For the purposes of the article on the subject of the M829 120mm cartridge, I chose the most relevant articles, from 2011 thru 2015, due to the fact that they contain the most recent changes in the ammunition, as well as encompass all of the current-ammuntion variants used today by the United States.

Regarding the format of my article: I agree with you that my version, as it stands, is not in the format which is seen commonly in wikipedia. And I understand as to why and how there exists a benefit for implementing and following a standardized format for article construction, wherein paragraphs organized under sections is preferable. Please note that I did attempt to break the article into three sections, according to ammunition variants (M829E4, M829A4, and M829A3), which are marked for division as headed in bold-font. The format of bullet-points for listing the information should be revised to follow an easier format for the benefit of the researcher. As it stands, the bullet-points do not provide a direction, and further subdivision of the article within the variants themselves must be implemented, and currently I am working on that.

For ease of reference and clarity to the researcher, I constructed two charts (of 2 columns and 7 rows each) containing the technical specifications of each of the two respective ammunition variants of the M829, the M829E4 and the M829A3. Failing to provide such a chart for the third M829 variant, the M829A4 cartridge, prohibits the article from following a uniform structure. It is intended that when the article is complete it will follow a format of the following: Ammunition Variant -Photos -Chart of technical specifications -Paragraphs

*Subdivided so that the direction and purpose of information follows a chronological as well as informational structure, uniform throughout

I do believe that with work, the article can be made better to meet the standards. I apologize for anything lost in translation in my communication, the internet lacks any sort of ability to decipher how something is communicated; please know that I say all of this with respect and sincerity to you and wish to improve the article. I am new at editing wikipedia, but I did this article with my best intentions for improving the article and am willing to spend the necessary time to achieve the goal.

November 2018

Your addition to M829 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Dl2000 (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above wasn't a copyright violation. It's a DoD report (PD). Thanks, Vermont (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source webpage is http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/army/2014m829e4.pdf. While most US Government webpages are public domain, the home webpage http://www.dote.osd.mil is marked as being copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, from the privacy page of the site: "Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." Vermont (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit and read the information regarding the publication and use of written and photo images of the annual reports here: http://www.dote.osd.mil/privacy.html I included the pages in the references for cited material.

The page has a copyright notice and symbol at the bottom. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dl2000, Dianna, Vermont: Regarding the subject of copyright violation, I have initiated a Dispute Resolution. Please visit the Dispute Resolution Notice Board, and provide a statement. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:MichaelPeiper0331

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. User:Diannaa appears to have looked into the matter in more depth and has reconsidered. Wikipedia always errs on the side of keeping WP free of copyvio, but of reconsidering such actions. Attacking Dianna is counter-productive, unless your objective is to establish that you are a flamer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon - Diannaa never once mentioned anything to me regarding a problem - I have had no problem with her, do not put words into her mouth. Dianaa and D12000 are problem solvers and I have thanked them both, I like working with them. Dianaa and D12000 reversed their decisions, and we solved the problem after you already closed the thread. You were useless as a volunteer for the Dispute Resolution Thread, and actually created a potential problem that was averted only beause Dianaa and D12000 did not pay any attention to you. I have three messages in my alerts, all three are messages sent by you in the same day for this Talk Page, only one is posted, I did not delete the other two. I am not interested in your feelings, these problems are beyond my scope. MichaelPeiper0331 (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]