User talk:DanMP5/Archive 2

?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submachine_guns

The game that I labeled as Submachine gun is featured in that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizzleflepp (talk • contribs)


 * What?? &mdash;  Dan  MP5   Semper Fi, Carry on  16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Recon wiki
Hey! Would you wanna join the Ghost Recon Wiki? It's new and we're looking for users!Spartytime 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just joined, cool site! --&mdash;  Dan  MP5  03:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied
I'm sorry, I was just bored, and sometimes I really don't agree with the Gun Politics have been going. I'm extremely educated in firearms and can help with that subject. Just tell me if there is any articles I can write on firearms, that have not been already written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.18.252 (talk)


 * Replied on user's talk page. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF?
What in WP:GUNS made you merge Px4 storm and px4 storm subcompact? I didn't see anything that suggested this was a good idea. This was neither a version (expert, or training) or a accurized model, but a completely different gun. If these articles should be together then so should all of the Glock models (ie G17, G18, G26). Finally, you did not do a very good job of merging, none of the info on the subcompact page made it over......especially the references. Viperix 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Px4 subcompact is not a "completely different gun", it's just a small version of the base Px4, which means that it should be in the same article. Technically, the Glock models should be merged, but that would result in a 100kb long article. And finally, I'll go back and add the references to the Px4 article. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the barrel system is different. The size is different. Beretta had to re-design this gun, and put it through its own developement process, they didn't just make the grip and barrel shorter. My point is that Its not a "version" as the place referenced above defines a version. If they meant for every weapon based off another to be a part of the same, then the carbines would all have to be merged into their parent articles, and so on....Viperix 10:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Briefly I will say that the policy referenced above does not just apply to actual target versions. It can apply to compact, or long-barrel versions, for example. In this case I would say that since they bear the same name they belong in the same article. Even though they did some redesign work, Beretta meant for it to be considered a compact variant of the Storm, as evidenced by the name.--LWF 14:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Viperix, By your definition of what should have it's own article all of the SIG P226 or HK USP variants which have slight design changes would have to have their own articles, and that just makes no sense.

LWF, I think WP:GUNS#Target versions needs to be expanded and renamed to something like WP:GUNS#Variants. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering about that myself. I'll take that to the project.--LWF 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I just disagree, They are different guns. You wouldn't say "that guy has two of the same gun" if "that guy" had a PX4 and a PX4 subcompact. While at the same time if a person had two HK USP variants you would say "that guy has two HK USP's" My definition reflects what the reference states, you two seem to be reading into it and makeing your own rules about it. Yes it is a compact version of the storm, just like the Cx4 is a Carbine version of the storm. Viperix 02:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I should probably clarify, I wrote that particular reference, and it was meant to apply to different variants of the same gun. At the time I had encountered a few "target" and "expert" version articles, and decided to write the policy. In retrospect I should have written it to be less ambiguous on subjects like this one. Hence the reason I have asked the project if it should be written to be less ambiguous when it comes to articles like the one in question. I will say that I had compact versions in mind when I wrote it, but since I didn't put it in at the time I am seeking a consensus at the project talk page before I make any change. Feel free to weigh in on the discussion at WT:GUNS.--LWF 04:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Guns wiki
Dan I found a wiki deticated to guns on wikia its link is here. Thought you might be interested --Cs california (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) from Encyclopedia gamia
 * Interesting. Can't believe I've never noticed that wiki before. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  05:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine Revert War
The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AK-47 at FAR
AK-47 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

MP-25 owner?
Hi, you indicate that you own an MP-25 pistol. Would you have the original manual for it? That should contain some basic specifications on the pistol, which we are lacking in the article. Thanks. Koalorka (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the guy I bought my MP-25 from had lost the manual, so no, I don't have a manual. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  02:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

P90 in Stargate
Admittedly I am hardly a gun expert, but does the P90 use in Stargate come close to being "highly notable" stated in the guidelines or has my perception been skewed?Thinkbui (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. This has been discussed many times at Talk:FN P90, specifically Talk:FN P90 and Talk:FN P90.&mdash;  Dan  MP5  19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it. I guess the franchise really is what they call a "slow burning candle".Thinkbui (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF DAN!
Bass Pro Shops sells items distributed by The National Audubon Society. Why can't they have an external link? Bass Pro Shops sells Audubon products just like Tracker boats and Smith and Wesson handguns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparksbrain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.basspro.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10151_-1_10001_95413____SearchResults —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparksbrain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They also sell products from about 200 other brands, does that mean they all get links? No. The boats that have links are a major part of the Bass Pro stores, Audubon products, not so much. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  14:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jetwave Dave loses another round
Dan, another checksum on Jetwave Dave's sock puppets has banned several more puppets. You were the target of one of these puppets, at least. Just thought you'd be interested. You might have also run across some of the others on the list. Parsecboy and asams10 were also targets. See: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jetwave_Dave. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review and comment on this Checksum
This is the request for checksum I put together: Requests for checkuser/Case/DroneZone. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lamborghini Gallardo tuning reference
Hello Dan, could you please let me know why you consider my references to the two Gallardo tuning kits as advertising. The article mentions the two models, and instead of putting all the details in the article, which would make it too long and go against Wikipedia rules of long pages, I've added the reference to these models. I have nothing to do with these people, just find these cars amazing, so I've put a reference to let people know I'm not making this up ?

Could you please put the references back in place as they are legit as far as I am concerned. WikiBull (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit for a number of reasons, not just advertising. I had reason to believe you were a sockpuppet of User:Lambocars, and apparently others did too. You were referring to the reader in the first person. Using weasel words. And finally, I (and another user ) don't believe it's a reliable source. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  16:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am really getting sick of this sock puppet stuff ... I have replied to this allegation on the correct page, but now nobody puts a conclusion on that page, so I guess this is going to haunt me forever, which really saddens me. I just want to put some of my enthusiasm about Lamborghini to work and add facts and figures to these pages. WikiBull (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am really sorry if your not a sock, I have doubts about that now, especially since no one has posted a conclusion on the Lambocars sockpuppet page. However articles must be written in a neutral point of view, must not refer to the reader in the first person, and must have reliable sources. I have added a welcome template to your talk page that has some links that will probably help you out some with the standards for how articles should be written. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

LWRC SRT
If you are intent on eliminating the list of simmilar firearms at the end of LWRC SRT please track back the entire string and delete the lists on those pages as well or leave it alone. SJSA 08:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We generally do not link to other firearms articles just because they use the same action and caliber. Just think, if we applied your logic to M24 Sniper Weapon System for example, the see also section would be filled with every bolt action rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO, .300 Win Mag, and .338 Lapua Mag. Right now that articles see also section is a good example, it has three directly relevant links: List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces, List of crew-served weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces, and M110 SASS. The first two because it is one of those weapons, and the third is a possible replacement, again, they are all directly relevant. The only one of your links that is directly relevant, LWRC Infantry Automatic Rifle, is already mentioned in the article, so it is unnecessary to link in a see also section.  Also, I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about above, all of those pages' see also links are fine. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See: all contributions by User:82.67.12.72, the originator of the edit, whose version I reverted too. SJSA 04:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All of those edits related to this were reverted shortly after being made. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  20:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The M16 Rifle
sorry i messed up the M16 Rifle page I didn't really get what you where saying i didn't really know but i want to ask could i make own page on wikipedia an the reason why i kept writing turkey is because i like the country turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.118.251 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly have no idea what you just tried to say. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

F2000
Hi man, I'm sorry for the edit on F2000 ....i wanted to put up a nice looking pic there.. those bearded soldiers don't look good...they look more like mercenaries ,to be precise like terrorists found in IRAQ,AFGANISTHAN etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrastealth (talk • contribs) 18:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed that pic coz they looked like terrorists from afganisthan.Ultrastealth (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The caption clearly says their from the Pakistani Air Force and their F2000s are clearly visible. I don't see a problem with it. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to S&W 500
Hello Dan

Please review my edit on S&W 500 page, I believe they were correct and well written.

This article on the S&W 500 is very light, and needs much more contents.

Please try to allow content, currently gun users do not view wikipedia for gun related information, and in order for it to be viewed more, there must be more content. Thanks

Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briang1621 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Looking at your edits now the only thing wrong is the details for the links are outside the ref tags. I'm going to undo my edit with the ref tags fixed. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

the potential problem with the source http://glockstore.com/blog_detail/74_Compensated_vs_Ported_Barrels
http://glockstore.com/blog_detail/74_Compensated_vs_Ported_Barrels appears to be a blog and also appears to be an online store (which may or may not impact their reliability.). per WP:RS, blogs are not usually reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources.[5]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs)


 * I don't see why there even needs to be another reference there, I mean compensators by definition reduce recoil. It's kind of like asking for a reference on Boeing 737 saying that it's engines produce thrust. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  15:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * you are changing the point. the point is that the source you provided is not reliable and not usable, so it should be removed. as to what a compensator does, the definition you provided says "A device fitted to the muzzle of a firearm meant to reduce the amount of recoil." and the edit war was over the claim that it reduced 'perceived' recoil. i ask that you please remove the unusable source if you agree with me about the original point, and then we can further discuss the 'perceived' recoil and whether that needs to be sourced. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comma, it is improper to question three sources provided by two separate users in response to your request for a source. If you doubt whether these are reliable sources, please take it up on the reliable sources board.  In the meantime you are reverting thoroughly referenced common knowledge material and edit warring with two long-standing editors of the Glock pistol article. Further, you appear to have misinterpreting what Dan said.  He said, "I don't see where there even needs to be ANOTHER reference," implying that either one of his or my reference was valid. He then provides the SAAMI and GunsAndAmmoMag references... that makes 5 references.  I'm confused about your standard on this matter.  Five references aren't enough now? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * it's proper to question 3 inappropriate sources if i think they're not usable. doesn't matter who posted them. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response, my internet has been messed up. But you've got 3 semi-reliable sources, one reliable source, and one ultra reliable source (SAAMI), how many do we need just to say that a compensated gun reduces recoil? &mdash;  Dan  MP5  14:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i am objecting to 'perceived' recoil. not just reducing recoil. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes... You've got this reference. —  Dan MP5  14:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * that source sucks. it's spam for a company that makes modifications, and has nothing to do with glocks specificially. also, you said there were 3 sources, which is clearly not the case. the only source that has the word 'perceived' in it is that questionable source. the other sources are superfluous and don't mention perceived Theserialcomma (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Quixotic quests aside, MagNaPort invented and patented porting processes in general. See . They are not only qualified, but patented to do just what the reference says. They also have emperical data to back up their claims.  The bottom line is, much as you've already been told, the wording in the article is consensus.  The EXACT wording of the reference and a reliable sources concensus is not necessary for EACH AND EVERY word in the article.  Several editors agree yet you disagree.  So, you're not part of the consensus. You've had your say.   --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the Gun Digest Book of the Glock reference (that somehow got overwritten when nukes commented) backs up what he just said. That is so many levels of redundancy and so many sources now that I have honestly lost count. Serialcomma, I do believe it is time to drop the stick. —  Dan MP5  04:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * listen, the average reader is not going to know as much as you or nukes about this topic. when i started questioning this, it wasn't because i thought you were wrong, but it was because the sourcing wasn't good, and what you expected everyone should know (what compensation is), most laymen don't actually know. i am happy that you provided a good source, and so this issue can be laid to rest. before, when this first started, there wasn't a good source, and it's bad encyclopedia editing to just assume someone is correct. it is much better to rely on reliable sources, which is what i am pushing for. now that we have good sources, everything has worked out (even if the process was less than efficient). Theserialcomma (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! Now we can all go back to constructively editing articles again! finally... —  Dan MP5  05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm counting. It's six.  Six sources.  We found the correct number.  From now on, you require six sources, three AN/I reports, one 3RR report, four editors, and five days for each and every word in the article.  This all started over the word, "Perceived" that I'd spelled wrong, remember? I seriously wish I were being sarcastic.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * this had nothing to do with you misspelling 'perceived.' that is ridiculous. but anyway, i only filed 2 ANI reports, not 3 - i filed them against you for incivility (you called me a retard, and other uncivil things) and you were subsequently blocked for | 24 hours (wasn't harsh enough, in my opinion - also the admin who declined your unblock request shared that opinion []). and the '3RR report' you are claiming i filed was actually an edit warring report, not specificially 3R (that's what got you blocked). and also you forgot to mention the sockpuppet report i filed against you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nukes4Tots - i hope that you are not found in violation of policy for sockpuppetry, and that it was just a misunderstanding, because i think you've contributed good things to the project and it'd be a shame to see you blocked over something lame like sockpuppetry. hopefully there is a good explanation from you, or it's just a misunderstanding. we'll see. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, DanMP5, sorry for stomping on your page. Where did I call you a retard?  Please provide the diff.  So, I was blocked for calling you what?  Please provide a single diff where I called you a single thing.  What uncivil things did I call you.  I forgot, that's 2ANI and a Sockpuppetry report not to mention questioning every reference I provided and all of the ones that DanMP5 provided.  That's your MO, eh, report people till the back down and you win?  Now you're also hounding Koalorka and DanMP5's edits calling us all gun nuts.  Here's the diff: .  Instead of JUST attacking these editors individually, you've attacked an entire group of editors... anybody that edits firearms articles.  That's called bigotry and prejudice.  You, comma, referred to, "individual editor's fear of their guns being taken away", and you said, "my opinion is that some people who edit this article are too emotionally involved in gun culture and advocacy".  That you can't see your prejudice as clearly as I can is telling.  It's not the content that you're attacking, it's the editors and your bigotry towards what you imagine they might think.  And I'll close with another apology, DanMP5, for stomping on your page but this is more neutral ground than my talk page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

to clear up this important point, it's certainly not prejudice, attacking, malicious, or soapboxing to surmise that someone who edits articles primarily on guns might be a fan of guns and possibly even its advocacy. for example, someone named DanMP5, if he were to have edits that focused mostly on guns, we could conclude, without making a value judgment, that he likes and probably supports guns. he might like guns so much that his name (DanMP5) derives from from the h&k MP5, a gun. editing articles about subjects you enjoy is great, totally fine with me, and i'm not making a value judgment to point this out.

back to other gun article editors: the fact that Dan edits primarily articles about guns is no problem for me at all. it just tells me that he probably likes guns - nothing more, nothing less. again, no value judgment there. typically, people edit what interests them. again, no problems there. you, also, edit articles mostly on guns. and many of the editors on glock pistol edit mostly articles on guns. therefore, for me to say that many editors here are into guns and advocacy is not derogatory. it's just an assumption i have made, which is neither negative nor positive. if a person named GrammarFan edited all grammar related articles, i wouldn't be attacking them to say "hey, this person probably advocates proper grammar." your argument really fails badly. no one ever implied that gun advocacy was a negative thing, cause i sure don't see it that way, so your unwarranted assumptions are just a failure to assume good faith. in summary, it's not a negative assumption to call someone a fan of guns, because guns are not necessarily a negative thing. if you are projecting your own fears of anti-gun sentiments into my argument, then that is your own weakness, irrespective to the ideals that i espouse. to me, guns are ok and advocating guns is ok. and my assumption is that people who edit primarily gun articles are probably gun advocates with some emotional attachment to gun related issues, such as gun rights, gun misinformation, negative gun propaganda, and other gun issues, than people who are neutral to the subject. end of story. you can disagree with my opinion, but to call me "attacking, a bigot, and prejudice" is just a personal attack, and tinkers on the line of what got you blocked 3 days ago. Do not keep up this behavior. it is grossly counterproductive. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, your logic is flawed at its conception. Guns are inanimate objects and therefore one cannot like or dislike them.  Your own prejudice might be clouding your opinion of this like it clouds your judgement on what is and is not a personal attack.  You defend your position against gun article editors and yet my position against your bigotry is suddenly a personal attack? How the heck do you know what my sentiments are one way or another?  It's entirely possible I'm a 'user' of firearms in my professional career, a manufacturer, a designer, a historian, or an anti-gun zealout.  More likely, I might be working toard the banning of guns and want the articles to be technically correct so the guns are easier to ban.  The bottom line is that you are not a psychic and cannot know what we think, believe, or feel and yet you espouse to know just that with your denegrating comments on the Glock pistol page.  You chased Koalorka to his talk page and then another user who's illegally posting stolen pictures and defended him then you went to comment on the AN/I he filed.  Why do I know this?  I've watched DanMP5, Koalorka, Yaf, LWF, and others' talk pages as they have a common interest... FIREARMS.  If you're looking for a neutral opinion on guns, it is found and is quite active on FIREARMS ARTICLES with editors such as those I just mentioned.  If you want opinion, go to the 2nd Ammendment articles that I try to avoid because, frankly, I don't have a clue or much interest in banning or saving guns.  Your constant hounding of firearms article editors is not only counterproductive, it is counter to the rules of Wikipedia.  How you can stand on your soapbox and defend half of the WP guidelines while ridiculing the other half is, as I've said before, telling.  Once more, DanMP5, if you're paying attention, I apologize for stomping on your talk page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i'm done with this conversation. if you are legitimately trying to construct an honest argument based on the fallacious premise that  people cannot like inanimate objects, then i'm sorry that i wasted this much time trying to reason with you. peace. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One cannot be for or against the firearm. How does one, as you stated, "Advocate for a gun"? You cannot.  Your premise is flawed in the same way as the anti-gun premise... guns aren't people.  The more you personify the tool and vilify those who merely edit frearms articles, the less credibility you will have. One cannot, likewise, be for or against the shift key, but one may make the choice to or not to use one.  Frankly, I wish you'd use them.  As much as a stickler as you are for wikilawyering, the least you could do is use the 2% of the keyboard you so often neglect.  BTW, you're not trying to reason with me, you're trying to BEAT me... that is the reason you'll always be frustrated in your dealings with me.  I'm not interested in winning or losing an argument.  Unlike you, I actually care about the content of the Glock pistol article.  You only care about making points.  I'm glad you're going away... or are you? Once more, DanMP5, your talk page is getting trampled.  I'll help foot the bill for new carpeting.  How does that sound? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First: Serialcomma, I'm frankly getting very tired of having to deal with you, so I'm not going to reply to any of your above comments. Secondly, nukes, I don't really mind, it's not like I get much traffic through here anyway, although I think it is time for an archive. Also, does this mean I can't hate my HP printer anymore? Dang. —  Dan MP5  15:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh no, you can hate printers. They do things on their own.  They are inherintly evil. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha. True. Or in my case, won't do anything no matter what. —  Dan MP5  21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * damn, my ipod broke. well, good thing i neither liked nor disliked it anyway, since it's inanimate. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't you go away? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)