User talk:ROG5728/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unité Spéciale de la Police

Hello ROG5728, I appreciate that you wrote an article about the USP, my last edit, about the hostage-taking in Wasserbillig is no speculation. I know this case in detail, and Béjaoui is definitely not dead. The French text you're referring says "abattu" which means indeed "shot down" and usually implies the target is dead -but, in fact it is ambiguous and as for the facts, here are some sources I just looked up (there's not enough spacce in the edit summary line to cite them all, so I'm giving you the references here):

http://www.land.lu/html/dossiers/dossier_justice/dossier_otage_wasserbillig/proces_bejaoui_121001.html (lokal Newspaper, in French, about the trial)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/veneer-stripped-away-by-assault-on-kindergarten-gunman-712750.html (in English, about the controversy around the Police action. I must comment on this: I consider the action a succes: not only did all the hostages, bystanders and police officers survive, but even the perpetrator survived and was put to trial. This is the best possible outcome of a hostage situation.)

http://www.faz.net/s/Rub02DBAA63F9EB43CEB421272A670A685C/Doc~EBF7FC8DC4EC94F1A972C41DFA7F26F42~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent~Afor~Eprint.html (in German, from a renowned German newspaper) Baltshazzar (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I added those citations to the article and edited the wording to say that he was shot and wounded. ROG5728 (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Macgyver-bd 896 IPs

If you don't mind, help me keep an eye out for this guy. You can read about what he's been doing here and here. He has recently started using IPs registered to Turk Telecom to try and evade blocks. So if you see infobox numbers being changed by any Turkish IP, revert it on the spot. Also keep an eye out for any user name like "Mad-major 896" or "Mad-captain 896", as he has used similar names in the past. Thanks. — DanMP5 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I will do that. ROG5728 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

M16 Users

I appreciate the feedback, ROG5728 (talk · contribs). The countries that I listed without a source were from Jane’s Special Forces Recognition Guide. Milstuffxyz (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You can cite books by following the template at Citation templates. ROG5728 (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Micro-Uzi

Modern Firearms's Uzi, Mini-Uzi and Micro-Uzi page's Micro-Uzi chapter is keeping wrong information. Micro-Uzi's barrel lenght is 134 mm.

Please look at these and compare:

[1]

[2]

Moreover if a 9mm caliber submachinegun's muzzle velocity is 350 m/s, its effective range is not 30 m. If 9mm caliber a submachine gun muzzle velocity is 335-340 m/s, its effective range may be 25-30 metres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.121.210 (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, you can replace the citations and numbers with the ones from UZI.com. But don't change numbers without adding a citation from a reliable source. ROG5728 (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dragunov sniper rifle users

Please be cautions when removing users. It is very obvious the Soviet Union used this rifle, since it originated there. Referencing past and current usage is desirable, but using common sense is too.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I did include and cite the Soviet Army as a user there when I added citations. Second, without a citation it is not obvious that the Soviet Union is a user of the weapon. There are hundreds of weapons that are not used by the countries they originated from. ROG5728 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I did not express myself clearly enough. You can for instance see photographic evidence of other unmentioned users in the article originating from US governmental sources. When removing users from a list having/providing a reference for use is desirable, but using common sense is too, since the SVD is a rather successful arm regarding its proliferation.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures can be used as citations if they have captions from reliable sources. The only photo of a user in that article with a caption in the source is the photo of a Hungarian soldier. The photo of the Kazakh soldier is a dead link and the photo of the US Marine shows weapon familiarization, not a user. Some of us may be reasonably sure of what countries use certain weapons, but it is not common knowledge to readers in general. Regardless of the weapon's proliferation, every addition to the list needs a citation. And if it's so obvious that the weapon is used by certain countries, it should also be easy to find a citation stating it. ROG5728 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rog I know personally that Dragunov is not only used by Indian army, special forces and even the national security Gaurds commandos. additionally the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Indian_Army also mentions indian army as a dragunov user. Siddharthmukund (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You may know that personally, but your comments are not verifiable. Wikipedia articles cannot use other Wikipedia articles as sources, either. You need to add a reliable source that says these organizations are using the weapon. ROG5728 (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For all your work on these gun articles, I had no idea till I started watching some of these pages. You're a rockstar! Keep up the good work! Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

122.58.56.84

Hi ROG, please note that 122.58.56.84 (talk · contribs) is the latest iteration of a very persistent IP vandal who adds nonsense to articles related to South-East Asian militaries (and primarily the Philippino military). I've been tracking them at User:Nick-D/sandbox and am happy to block them on sight if you drop me a line. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I will be watching for him. ROG5728 (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PASAM Mauser

The source material I used was Jane's Infantry Weapons 1987. It's valid. Brasilian State Military Police units used a Mauser M30 carbine variant called the PASAM (Pistole Automatico/Semi-Automatico Militar). Look it up. Hotspur23 (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You can cite the book by following the template at Citation templates. Don't add the text back without citing the book. ROG5728 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A "GREAT" user page to read.

Dear Roger, if you have a some spare time, go to this user page on Wikipeia behavior that someone once pointed me to a while back. I was so grateful that person did. It is sort of the "Murphy's Law" for "Wikipedia." best JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of entire section "Users" on AR-15

Don't you think removing the entire Users section from this page was just a little drastic?

Ok, some of it is unsourced (some of it is just plain common sense), but that doesn't mean deleting the entire section is the right solution! I'm going to reinstate the section with an up-to-date Referencing Tag.

You are clearly a long time editor here, so you should be well aware of the need to discuss changes as enormous as deleting an entire section.

As you seem to be knowledgeable regarding firearms, why not start working on referencing the list rather than just deleting the entire thing to hide the problem!

RWJP (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. The entire list has been unsourced for over 6 months. In that time no one has made any effort to cite any text in the list. Without citations the list does not contribute to the article because it isn't verifiable. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. That is not only my opinion, but a direct quote from the Edit window you're shown every time you edit an article. In this case, the content is not verifiable and it has been tagged for over 6 months. If you want the section to stay, you need to cite it. Do not add it back without citations. ROG5728 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger I have added the user flag section back, minus all but one flag: Afghanistan. I have also added a very reliable and verifiable reference ARMY TIMES. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger I went back and retracted the flag. I eventually figured it out. You are taking the term AR-15 and M16 to its ninth degree not accepting that most in the world see AR-15 and M16 as interchangeable. Why didn't you just say that instead of upsetting so many people? And trolling the articles on WP to find technicalities so you can make a statement with a mass deletion is not exactly the spirit of WP. But you can if you wish. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They are two separate articles for a reason. As for you being upset by Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, that is not my problem. I only enforce the policy. And regardless of whether or not you like the process, everyone can agree the end result has been high quality, verifiable User lists in nearly every firearm article on Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Roger, If you had read either of the user pages on WP behavior you would have understood. And for the record they are written by administrators. And second you used a word that is almost taboo on WP: ie ENFORCE. Also, read what it says on requesting references, stating that if they can not be provided they can be "challenged" and "removed" later. That means, if someone knows it is not true they can remove it. Thanks for taking the time to read what I have just posted, but please take the time and read those two user pages I posted for you. I found them both extremely enlightening when they were pointed out to me. Finally, Roger, per WP beliefs, I have to assume good faith on your part and hope that maybe in the future you will have a change of heart, and as one administrator stated, if you have to take an edit down or revert it, "Don't rub their noses in it." and more important "relax." Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you did not read the user pages you linked, because they do not disagree with my behavior. The #1 point (1) says to respect common standards on Wikipedia. The second point says to not over-guard articles when they are changed, so long as policies are being followed. The user page overall says not to be "fanatical". It is not fanatical to remove a section of text that has been unsourced and tagged for over 6 months. It is not fanatical to revert uncited entries to lists that clearly state citations are needed for entries. Anyone will agree that the quality of the Users sections has been drastically improved through this process, so you're looking for a problem that does not exist. You are "rubbing your nose in it", I am not. ROG5728 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Then add in an obnoxious list of "CITATION NEEDED"s until someone gets up and verifies it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The user sections have headers that already serve that purpose. If you open an edit window for one of the sections you will notice a note explaining that all entries to the lists need citations, and that entries without citations will be removed for lack of verifiability. This note is often ignored and it's necessary to remove the additions so editors will produce sources that make the content verifiable. ROG5728 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Another "Great" User Page to Read

Dear Roger, If you have a chance check out the page Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. It is very enlightening. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I've just enabled rollback rights on your account. This will let you revert multiple vandalism edits by the same editor with one click of the mouse. Please note, however, that it should only be used against vandalism and blatantly unproductive edits - further guidance is at WP:ROLLBACK. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That will be helpful. ROG5728 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Usage of Heckler & Koch weapons in Denmark

I see you're a bit of a fanatic when it comes to guns, not that there is anything wrong with that, but one result is, that English wikipedia is now currently missing the information on H&K usage by the Danish police. The danish wikipedia has this information already, with user pictures and the lot. I've added the information back in with new citations that hopefully are more to your liking. If you keep selectively removing information you don't feel is correct, we'll have to take time to sit down and find citations that are acceptable to both of us. Lacking that I'll go photo the weapons together with the uniforms, and their Dannebrog sleeve patch, and upload them to the articles. Mecil (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The new citations you added are suitable and they support the text. I did not say your claims were incorrect, I said they needed citations so they would be verifiable. Originally you did not add any citation for the text you added at Heckler & Koch HK69A1, and the citation you added at Heckler & Koch USP did not support your text. If your original edits had not been reverted, you would not have added those citations so the text would not have been verifiable. ROG5728 (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your point with the HK69A1, but the link on the USP did support the text, though re-reading it now I see it was less than perfect, and thus I concede the general point. My apologies Mecil (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The first citation at Heckler & Koch USP only said that the Danish police use Heckler & Koch pistols. But Heckler & Koch has produced many different pistols so it could have meant anything. ROG5728 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

HK P30 trigger variants table

I have some problems with the trigger variants table because the trigger pulls of the P30 and P30L variants actually differ. The trigger travel data is not mentioned in the table. I realize the P30(L) pistol series have a wide array of trigger options, hammer types etc. that is not easily described in an article. Could you edit/expand the table to provide the "lost" information that was offered in the textual description? at http://www.heckler-koch.de/HKWebText/detailProd/1925/138/4/21 Official P30 page from the Heckler & Koch Group website and http://www.heckler-koch.de/HKWebText/detailProd/1925/449/4/21 Official P30L page from the Heckler & Koch Group website this information is available under "Specifications"in tabular format. For obtaining the metric data used in Germany choose "deutsch" as language instead of "english". I do not have the skills to make such clear tables as HK does in Wikipedia.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I went back and added the P30L and trigger travel information that was lost when it was converted to a table format. When I get a chance I'll check the tables for errors and add citations to the section. ROG5728 (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right 20 N ≈ 4.5 lb_f. How do you know for sure the data in the metric HK tables is incorrect and the data in the imperial HK tables is correct? Measuring and stating trigger pull is however somewhat tricky, since a trigger is essentially a lever mechanism. At the bottom/near the trigger guard less pull on the trigger blade is required to fire a gun than at the top/near the slide. The centre of the trigger blade will yield pull force measurements between the bottom and top.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Heckler & Koch USA website lists a 20 N trigger pull for the V3, (which translates to 4.5 lb_f) so even though it uses metric specifications it agrees with the imperial tables at the HK global website, and it doesn't agree with the metric tables at the HK global website. Therefore the 20 N (or 4.5 lb_f) measurement seems to be the correct one for those variants. ROG5728 (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AT4 - Thanks

Dear Roger, Thanks for hunting up the reference on Venezuela and the Columbia insurgents, etc. Again, thanks. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I found and added a source that lists the Malaysian special forces and numerous countries as users of the AT4. If you know of any countries still absent from the list I can look for sources for them. ROG5728 (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger I wonder if you can help me with this. I am doing a re-edit on a translated Italian WP article on a widely used medium caliber (ie 76mm) naval cannon. The company, Otobreda (you read it right, they merged recently) has taken that cannon and increased the rate from 80rpm to 139rpm (ie it only fires in five round burst). I have always assumed that the higher the rate of fire, the less accurate a small arm is (the barrel rises faster for one thing I have always been told). But with naval cannons that fire in burst, it seems, they are actually more accurate. This Italian cannon is even replacing 20mm/30mm cannon in the anti-shipping missile role. Question: Is it true that small arms that have a higher rate of fire are less accurate. Or is that an old wives tale? I prefer not to make a fool out of myself in the article if it is not true. Also, have you ever heard of a machine gun doing the loading and firing and ejection in "parallel" instead of "sequence". I need answers on these questions that I can put in plain English in the article. Thanks for any help. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

PS> If it will help with the question, I can scan off the page explaining how the cannon operates. I sure can't make heads or tails of it! Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with your assumption that a higher rate of fire generally reduces a small arm's accuracy, but in specific cases that may not be correct. I could not say for sure. In the meantime you can always explain the details as they are purported to be, until they are more clearly broken down. ROG5728 (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Poland

Hello. Sorry but I forgot to add the source because I found only a few photos from the website of the Polish Ministry of National Defence: http://www.wp.mil.pl/en/galeria/1446 In these photos are soldiers from Polish special unit GROM who use AT4. Only so much I found and I don't know if it's enough. These are the sixth and fourth images from the end of gallery. Sorry for my English. Regards. BartekJerzy (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I added Poland back to the user list with that picture as a source. The pictures don't identify the operators as GROM so that shouldn't be stated in the list yet. ROG5728 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed it isn't confirmed that these soldiers are from GROM. I found only this article from the same website http://www.wp.mil.pl/pl/artykul/4564 unfortunately only in Polish, but in the second paragraph is mentioned that those soldiers are from the Polish Special Forces, so it is possible that they may also be from 1st Special Commando Regiment or FORMOZA. BartekJerzy (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

5.7x28mm

All of the references are formatted wrong. There shouldn't be http:// anything in the footnotes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The citation template for web citations doesn't say that. It includes a publisher field but it doesn't give an example of how the publisher name should be formatted. ROG5728 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Milkor MLG

You told me to put a reference down when adding information, notably for the users of the above mentioned weapon. You are naturally right, but I couldn't really find a reference a apart from the wikipedia article on the Mexican Federal Police which states that they use the weapon. Now would this be a reasonable source?, keep in mind that there is no reference to its use by this law enforcement agency in the article apart from the fact that it is stated.Bobpwner12 (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be an external source. Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. ROG5728 (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought as much otherwise it would be circular logic really. Thanks for the vigilance though.Bobpwner12 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)