User talk:DanMP5

9mm etc
Yes I have seen this, althoguth I wasn;t aware it was such a problem. It is related to WP:AWB general fixes: I will pring it up sith the devlopeers and measurement specialists to see what can be done. Rich  Farmbrough 10:10 4  March 2009 (UTC).


 * Ok, thanks. —  Dan MP5  14:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Springfield_Armory_XD
Regarding your marking of it with the advert flag - shouldn't you be at least commenting on it on the talk page if you're going to flag it as such? Give some reasons for the flagging and suggest some ways to improve the article.MobileOak (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Seemed clear enough to me. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm a Wiki editting noob. Nice cleanup Nukes. MobileOak (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, it was pretty obvious that the "Features" section was copied off some SA press release or something. And thanks Nukes, I had been meaning to re-write that article for about three months but haven't had the time to do really much of anything on here. —  DP 5 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's funny, I have pictures of the XD and HS2000 that I took on the same day, same focus, same lighting. You switch back and forth and only the name and a slight bit of the finish changes! I don't like the older pistols.  The "M" model with the small backstrap is okay, but I can't engage the grip safety reliably with the standard grip.  Bummer, good pistol otherwise. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have pictures of the HS2000? That might be worth adding somewhere in the article, maybe under a new section for the HS2000 since it doesn't have its own article. Also, what model XD do you have pictures of? A good quality profile image of a standard 4" service model would be good for the infobox, since the current one is at a weird angle. —  DP 5 03:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quite publication quality. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhh, no, don't think that's quite good enough. And is that a tie-wrap for a chamber safety? But thanks again for the cleanup, I thought it was a shame that such a notable firearm had such a poor article. —  DP 5 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, tie-wraps are for chamber safety. These are inventory guns, not guns I shoot. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

non-brealing space
Dan you may wish to comment here. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 22:40 23 April 2009 (UTC).

AVB-7.62
Please stop. If you continue to edit disruptively and turn back portions of page content, which have been argumentively removed from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. About the Infobox : when there is a data we will let it in, not before that! By the way, i'm the one who created this article! 217.10.252.131 (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what happened. Since the original IP that removed the information made four edits, I clicked on the last one to revert and missed the argument for removal. However he failed to explain why Modern Firearms "doesn't provide any information worthy for reference", or why he wiped out nearly the entire infobox, so I would have still reverted it. Modern Firearms is pretty much the standard reference for firearms articles, and is very reliable save a few spelling errors. If you believe it is not a reliable source, take it to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also, since your edit is being challenged, and the article had remained in its previous version for ~9 months, I'm going to revert your edit back to the status quo. Please do not revert the page again until you have a concensus to do so. —  DP 5  14:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If i can clear it out a bit : the reliable Modern Firearms doesn't have a single picture of the AVB-7.62 realy! It has photos of the Czech variant and the AB-7.62, and they are not the AVB-7.62 for sure! Also, a large portion of all the information is about them, not the AVB-7.62! Again, the Czech variant is not the same weapon, the name is different : LCZ B20, the weapon doesn't look exactly the same, and the cartridge isn't the same. This is just a weapon based on the AVB-7.62. We can't link together all weapons that are related somehow. About the info box, what a mess! When there's a data of all that in there, than it should be placed, not now, hampering the page for the editors! Now, do we have concensus! 217.10.252.132 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we do not have a consensus. The LCZ B20 appears to just be a Czech made AVB-7.62 in a different caliber, and the AVB-7.62 in turn seems to be an AB-7.62 in another caliber with minor changes. Meaning they go in the same article per WP:GUNS. And you do not remove relevant unused fields in the infobox, it screws up the formatting and makes it much harder for editors to add data later. —  DP 5  04:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Kellgren
I think I was the one that searched for and found the spelling as "Kelgren" but the patent does, indeed, have two "L"s. I'll poke around and see if I can come up with something more definitive. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After searching google for 30 minutes I can't find reliable source for either, however if the patent lists it as two Ls, that's probably going to be the correct spelling. I reverted that edit mostly for the less than standard level of integration. —  Dan MP5  15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Short of calling George at Kel-Tec, I am convinced it's two "L"'s. I'll change them when I get some time. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is spelled with 2 "L"'s. Some of the newspapers and trade press have gotten it wrong and then subsequently copied each other :-)  There was even some of this "copying" going on at the Shot Show this year in Orlando when I was there.  I also looked at several of the Kel-Tec CNC patents, and they all listed his name with 2 "L"'s.  Yaf (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

conservation of momentum ＜昔神童今心房細動>
Have you already gotton my masage as follws?; Hallo, Mr.nicename DanMP5. I'm Japanese. I'm very disappointed. Icannot understand what you say,”vandalism and experiment”. Japanese Wikipedia "ロケット" = "rocket" http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B1%E3%83%83%E3%83%88 It says that "The rocket is a device that shoots a part of own mass backward, and gains power (thrust) in the reaction." That is conservation of momentum. And English Wikipedia "Momentum" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%

English Wikipedia "Newton's cradle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cradle

Do you accurately understand these theories? I'm been a mechanical designer for 30 years,and worked in the gun-maker before. If you want to disagree with me,you all boys should do it with physical theoty,immediately. Or,I can require Mr.Sheldon Rampton to explain persecution by you. thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 昔神童今心房細動 (talk • contribs)


 * English articles should be edited by somebody with a firm grasp of the English language. I apologize if you do not understand your lack of a comprehensive understanding of the language.  I'm sure you understand Newton in Japanese, however your translation of the concept is incorrect, difficult to follow, and cumbersome.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand the conservation of momentum, but I honestly cannot understand what you are trying to say. Assuming you are wondering why I reverted your edit, it was because I clicked on this diff, and not noticing your other edit, assumed you were just a vandal inserting nonsense into the article. However, if I had noticed it I would have still reverted it because it was poorly worded with very bad grammar, and really not necessary in that article. If you wish to discuss this further, please try to write in actual english. —  Dan MP5  18:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

IS that vandalism?<昔神童今心房細動>
I never acknowledge what you say.Because,I believe that you two gentlemen understood my protest written by your language. Please see the diff of 11:59, 9 June 2009. you two can Probably find out that just two characters were changed by me. IS that vandalism? It my new question. Please study faithful-english,like this-"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I cannot believe you two recognize the conservation of momentum. Please explain the conservation of momentum with decreased effective mass by partial differential equation.Why don't you two gentlemen come to Japan for the purpose of acquiring knowledge of Robot and Physics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 昔神童今心房細動 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, are you just trolling now or what? I already told you, I did not notice your other edits, just this one. I reverted that edit because it was nonsense, and since you were the last editor, the rollback function also reverted your other edits automatically. Your other edits were not vandalism, they were just unnecessary in that article and had very poor grammar. —  Dan MP5  19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

UCP
Throughly referenced material? Are you serious? Your idea of FACT is what makes wikipedia, in the view of many nothing more then a blog for the creative whims of those with nothing better to do then add conjecture to articles. I have made edits based on FIRST HAND knowledge, something that I assure you YOU DO NOT HAVE on this topic. Lets take a look at one for instance; congress approved Multicam for a unit? This demonstrates a fundemental lack of knowledge of the process of equipment acquisition and issue, how about another. Natick Soldier Center and subordinate directorates selcted the UCP. Wrong again my edit happy friend, NSC is one in a chain of research and development facilities which passes information along to come to a final decision. And my personal favorite, ACUPAT. That actually made me and my co workers laugh, one because it is ridiculous and two because whoever wrote it (or continues to re-post it; that would be you) thinks it's an actual term! The list goes on, that being the case I will continue help the rest of the wiki user community by posting CORRECT information. And I am sure for your part you will continue to stand by your incomplete and misleading information based on your self percieved expertise, which I promise you you have NONE based on your need to cling to abstracts from mid study reports and out dated presentations. I look forward to our mutual right to continue editing this article and HOPE that this might propmt you to look harder at this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReviewerUSA1 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, please provide a link to where I said I had first hand knowledge or expertise in this subject, cause I'm fairly certain I never said that. Also, on Wikipedia, first hand knowledge is generally useless without reliable sources to back it up per WP:OR, which is one of the core policies.
 * If you will look at my edit, you will see that I did not re-add that paragraph about Multicam. However, since I did not notice your removal of "ACUPAT" (yes, I would have removed it too), I'll assume you just didn't notice either.
 * The sentence about NSC selecting the UCP (that I also didn't notice) seems to have been randomly placed in the article, it doesn't even make sense.
 * And the first defensetech.org reference seems to be the only one that fails WP:RS.


 * So I guess I was a little quick to revert your edits and missed some things, but you just can't come here and removed referenced material and replace it with things like "UCP was optimized for desert and urban combat zones but still performed well in woodland settings" that contradict the already present sources, without equal or more reliable sources saying otherwise. Another good read for you would be WP:NPOV and WP:AGF. In the mean time, I am going to revert your edit to the status quo until a consensus is reached, however I will remove some of the things you pointed out. —  Dan MP5  16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
DanMP5, I don't suppose you could send me an e-mail, there's something important that I'd like to talk with you about. It involves a number of other people too, and we'll be discussing something I think you'll want to be a part of.--LWF (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sent! —  Dan MP5  04:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

SVT 40
Hi, about number of SVT 40 build i think it was more than 1.6 mil. I have one and it's number is 2'227'514 (ФБ7514 means "22"+"2"+"7514") and it was build on 1942.

Also Steve Kehaya on this book (sks carabine) speak about 6.000.000 of AVT38/40 was build from 1939 to 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzz75 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find a reliable source for either number, but many forums mention between 1.5 and 1.6 million. I couldn't find anything saying 6 million, or anything over 1.6 million. I don't know why your serial number is so high (maybe not the serial number?), but it is original research at any rate. —  Dan MP5  22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can send you 2 page scan from a book ad a picture of my svt40 s/n. My email is micheleschi@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzz75 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, that would be unnecessary since your SVT serial number unfortunately, falls under Wikipedia's no original research guideline. And you can just fill out a template below to cite the book in the article, since there is no source for the current number of 1.6 million. I am concerned about the very large discrepancy between what I've found and that book though, but I guess it beats no source at all.




 * See here for how to fill that out and I'll add it to the article. Thanks. —  Dan MP5  15:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here, on page nr.10 it's speak about the total of 5.823.795 AVT38/40 rifles were produced, 1.7 milion more than the number of M1 Garands supplied to the U.S. forces during World War II.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzz75 (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, this is far too large of a discrepancy to just add to the article without discussion. I have started a thread on the articles talk page. —  Dan MP5  15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

9mm
Just asking for your help. It appears the editor that added the 'notoriaty' section to the article is prepared to engage in an edit war over it's inclusion. I believe we may be in agreement that it degrades the quality of the article. I'm prepared to do what I can to keep it out but may need some assistance in building editorial consensus.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up, but I already have the page Watchlisted. —  Dan MP5  03:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Custom handguns
I finally got around to having a look at those article you flagged up. I prodded two, redirected another, and adding sources to the last. See WP:PROD for how to propose an article for deletion if the deletion looks uncontroversial. I use Twinkle scripts to automate a lot of these processes, it makes editing Wikipedia so much easier. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've went ahead and merged the last one, as I don't think it's notable enough for it's own article. —  Dan MP5  04:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool, I'm sure you're right. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bentedh IPs
Hey Dan, since it seems Bentedh has come back, here's a list of the IPs he's used in the past: User:86.20.160.24, User:81.108.211.71, User:78.151.105.180, and User:92.27.151.102. This ought to be helpful if today wasn't an isolated incident and he's starting up again, and since I'm going offline tomorrow I might as well get this documented so it won't take any page history trawling to find them.--LWF (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for them. He shouldn't be too hard to miss though since he blatantly advertises that its him. —  Dan MP5  21:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if you need to report him, you shouldn't have any trouble digging up his old stuff to prove he has a history of this. Hopefully that won't be necessary.--LWF (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please
Hello Dan ! I just noted the above message. So i drop the same message which i left for LWF also to your attention:

Please keep an eye on this user (turk-user). I have noted several international edits -  which are supposed to be vandalism. Regards from de:Portal:Waffen --Gruß Tom (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I allowed myself to add my entry in WikiProject_Firearms#Active_members (#38) --Gruß Tom (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am unfortunately aware of this user, he has been making repeated incorrect and disruptive changes to firearms articles, and continued after being warned. He has also been doing the same thing under several IPs registered to TurkTelekom. I haven't really had time to do an ANI report on him. I will give him one more warning, and if he continues, I will seek admin intervention. —  Dan MP5  04:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I have done corrections to all his international edits execept on en.wiki and tr.wiki. I could detect one IP  Edit  as you did. Please: Don't hesitate to stop him internationally if he continues with his behaviour. --Gruß Tom (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Note blocks for Macgyver-bd 896 in tr:wp (copied from here): 2009-10-10T18:34:31: Homonihilis (account creation blocked) expiry time: 2009-10-17T18:34:31 (#8-Telif ihlali ve intihal) + special edits:   Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I filed an ANI report on him here, but was unable to get him blocked on en wiki. If he continues his disruptive edits I will again seek admin intervention. —  Dan MP5  04:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He has been blocked in turk wikipedia till today. Just now his makes IP edits: (same in germany). If this continues we might block this turk IP-Range. I also asked this turk admin for help. Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with getting him blocked, at least on en wiki, is that almost all of the current range data on firearms articles is already unsourced: so the admins are reluctant to block him for replacing unsourced content with different unsourced content. However, this is the only thing he does on Wikipedia, going around to different articles changing the range by a few meters, continues after being warned repeatedly, uses sock IPs to get around the warnings, and refuses to explain why he is doing this except that he "thinks" these are the correct ranges. If that isn't disruptive editing, I really don't know what is. —  Dan MP5  14:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The only way to catch him is to keep the track. That's why i also drop the difflinks here for you. In the end we will need a steward to block him internationally. Normal ANI is too busy to handle this. I suppose to continue collecting and to file a checkuser request when you think it is sufficient. To wait for this might be annoying but i have no other idea. --Gruß Tom (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. You might also keep an eye open for this brilliant boy with new ideas for data ;-) --Gruß Tom (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This user has been blocked for puppeting in tr:Wikipedia after this Checkuser-Request.--Gruß Tom (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruger SR9
Hi Dan ! de:Ruger SR9 should be nice now - your opinion ? --Gruß Tom (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:FN F2000
Hello - I replied to your message on this talkpage.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell are you??? and i demand a reason to why you removed my edited changes and important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.36.43 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It might help if I knew who you were and what edit(s) I reverted. —  Dan MP5  21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read
I don't recall editing RPD and what do you mean by vandilism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Editor (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. —  Dan MP5  15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thompson Carbine cal. .30 Carbine ?
Hi DanMP5 ! Please keep an eye on this case. Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ohh noooo, I seriously hope it's not that psychotic goofball again. You can find out all you would ever want to know about him here and in those subpages. I had noticed that User:Yadayadayaday was editing a bit oddly; but just thought he was an overly-patriotic Argentinean, since the only mildly disruptive edits I noticed seemed to be promoting Argentine weapons. —  Dan MP5  05:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

About the 5.45 x 39 mm article
If you disagree on something you can use the Discussion page and let the people decide. Until then, you DO NOT delete anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.132.154 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If someone makes a controversial edit to an article I have the authority to remove the controversial material, in fact I can do so up to three times. However I have started a new thread on the talk page, and will kindly ask you to not re-add the material until a consensus is reached. —  Dan MP5  00:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

M-14
Dan, seeing as you reverted my edit, I would appreciate your input here. Falcon5nz (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd Woodson
Hi ... I see you reverted my edit at the Bushmaster page. I have a different view, but not a strong enough one on its entry there to spend more time discussing.

But could you do me a favor at the Lloyd Woodson article? I think that it could benefit from an added photo or two of the type of rifle(s), .50 caliber ammunition (esp hollow point), grenade launcher, etc., but am not sure which of the available pix would make most sense. Could you take a glance, as this seems to be an area of your expertise, and let me know what pic or pix make most sense to add to that article? Most people don't know what the arms/ammunition look like, so a visual would help here. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)