User talk:Bones Jones

March 2017
Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you recently removed some content from StG 44 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
I see your point regarding the military/law enforcement and civilian variants of the KRISS Vector. Can you review my latest edits and see what you think and lets discuss, instead of reverting ones edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Lover (talk • contribs) 06:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not change or remove any information regardig the KRISS Vector's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Lover (talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at KRISS Vector shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bakilas (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Bakilas. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bakilas (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Millennium Challenge 2002. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please discontinue adding the NPOV template to the referenced article. As I pointed out in my edit summaries and on the talk page, the quote you've provided as evidence that the article is not neutral is from a questionable source and appears to be a fringe theory. In general, fringe theories are not considered necessary; their absence does not make an article non-neutral.'' Khalfani  Khaldun  04:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recoilless rifle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Backblast ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Recoilless_rifle check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Recoilless_rifle?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Your recent editing history at Millennium Challenge 2002 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to War, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. - wolf  16:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason given was "the claims made have, in order, come from someone who is not reliable or taken seriously in any field (Grossman), have been considered debunked for 30 years (SLA Marshall), quote an encyclopedia for gun collectors that cites no sources stating a piece of data nobody has ever managed to corroborate (the civil war claim) and have very little to do with the article (the strange tangent about fascism)." Grossman in particular is a controversial figure and should never be treated as an unbiased source, you can "according to Dave Grossman" him, but not quote him as fact.


 * Some sources regarding SLA Marshall:


 * "SLA Marshall and the Ratio of Fire" by Professor Robert Engen, SSHRC Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Royal Military College of Canada, comparing Marshall's figures to data from the Canadian Army in WW2. Finds that it does not in any way match Marshall's claims.


 * "SLA Marshall and the Ratio of Fire" (yes, same title) by Professor Roger J. Spiller, Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College, shows that Marshall could not possibly have gathered the evidence he claimed and concludes he almost certainly made it up. Quote:


 * "Why the subject of fire ratios under combat conditions has not been long and searchingly explored, I don't know," Marshall wrote. "I suspect that it is because in earlier wars there had never existed the opportunity for systematic collection of data."...


 * By the most generous calculation, Marshall would have finished "approximately" 400 interviews sometime in October or November 1946, or at about the time he was writing Men Against Fire.


 * This calculation assumes, however, that of all the questions Marshall might ask the soldiers of a rifle company during his interviews, he would unfailingly want to know who had fired his weapon and who had not. Such a question, posed interview after interview, would have signalled that Marshall was on a particular line of inquiry, and that regardless of the other information Marshall might discover, he was devoted to investigating this facet of combat performance. John Westover, usually in attendance during Marshall's sessions with the troops, does not recall Marshall's ever asking this question. Nor does Westover recall Marshall ever talking about ratios of weapons usage in their many private conversations. Marshall's own personal correspondence leaves no hint that he was ever collecting statistics. His surviving field notebooks show no signs of statistical compilations that would have been necessary to deduce a ratio as precise as Marshall reported later in Men Against Fire. The "systematic collection of data" that made Marshall's ratio of fire so authoritative appears to have been an invention.


 * (Emhasis mine)


 * "About Face" by Colonel David H. Hackworth, one of the most decorated officers in the history of the United States Army, among other things states that Marshall "never let the truth get in the way of a good story."


 * "SLA Marshall’s Men Against Fire: New Evidence Regarding Fire Ratios" by Professor John Whiteclay Chambers II, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at Rutgers University, includes a full interview with First Lieutenant Frank Brennan, an officer who witnesses Marshall's interviews. Quote from his conclusion:


 * "Without further corroboration, the source of Marshall’s contentions about shockingly low fire ratios at least in some US Army divisions in World War II appears to have been based at best on chance rather than scientific sampling, and at worst on sheer speculation.


 * It seems most probable that Marshall, writing as a journalist rather than as a historian, exaggerated the problem and arbitrarily decided on the one-quarter figure because he believed that he needed a dramatic statistic to give added weight to his argument. The controversial figure was probably a guess."


 * Moreover, recent editions of Marshall's book Men Against Fire actually debunk his work in the book's own introduction, citing General Bruce Clarke who said they were "Ridiculous and dangerous assertions - absolute nonsense."


 * You want Wikipedia to hold this up as factual? Bones Jones (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on War. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - wolf  01:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * And you're not, I suppose? Bones Jones (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You've been here almost 2 years and have almost 700 edits, so you should know better. You are not special, the rules apply to you like everyone else. You don't get the final say, just because you think you are right. Per WP:BRD, you make an edit, you get reverted, if you disagree with the revert, you don't re-revert again, you go to the talk page, like everyone else. With each subsequent revert, I advised you to go to the talk page. Instead, you posted a massive rant here, then kept reverting, while arguing with each edit summary. This is not how disputes are resolved. I suggest you self-revert (the project won't blow up if your preferred version isn't there for a little while), then go to the article talk page and start a discussion. - wolf  01:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A "massive rant?" You mean a list of authoritative sources with explicit quotes that support my position? How about you contest my claims rather than trying to "win" by throwing the rulebook at me? You've provided nothing to support your position that any of this stuff belongs in the article. Bones Jones (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are the places to discuss articles. My posts here, on your user talk page, are about your behaviour, and because it is required. And, my only "position" is that there is process here, and you are not following it. - wolf  02:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's nice. If you have no meaningful objection to the edit itself, then there is nothing further to discuss. Bones Jones (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Fun tip
WP:PREVIEW. Give it a try. Turn seven edits into one. FYI - wolf  00:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2019
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on FIM-92 Stinger. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. BilCat (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should concern yourself more with the IP user constantly swapping the picture out for dummy missiles? You know, the one who's insulted me, too, who you didn't bother to warn? Bones Jones (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * He/she/it/xe called you "idiot" once, while you've made many more attacks against him/her/it/xit, including just a few minutes ago, in addition to your previous attacks against other users. Meanwhile, both of you are engaged in an edit war, and need to stop. I'll warn him/her/it/xit for that, but consider yourself warned too. - BilCat (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You are right, but it won't stop other people being dicks to you.

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Assault weapon ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Assault_weapon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Assault_weapon?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Semi-automatic
 * MAUL (shotgun) ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/MAUL_%28shotgun%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/MAUL_%28shotgun%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Semi-automatic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Your recent editing history at White phosphorus munitions shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrBill3 (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. I am noting here that there is good faith discussion ongoing at the talk page of the article. MrBill3 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting time to do this, after I've stopped reverting and all. Bones Jones (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have attempted a withdrawal of the report. My report was malformed as it was made prematurely, my apologies. It seems the discussion on talk is progressing. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
El_C 18:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Man-portable air-defense system
Hello. Please familiar with WP:PLURALS then fix lead according to article title. Eurohunter (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)