User talk:Koalorka/Archive 2

Super Étendard image
I'm not sure what exactly you were trying to do with the series of edits that began here. There was nothing wromg with theimage to begin with, as far as I can tell. All your changes involved the same file, so you weren't trying to change the image to a new one. What puzzles me is why you left the image field blank when your were finished, per this edit.

There's nothing wrong with experimenting, but it's probably better if you use the preview feature instead of saving your changes, then it would be easier to just not save it if it doesn't work. In the future, please be a little more considerate, no matter how you make your changes, and restore the last good version rather than leaving a mess for someone else to clean up. If you don't know how to fix something, it's better to ask on the talk page for help, rather than just leave the mess. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I just wanted to resize it to a standard 300 px, but ended up fudging the entire thing up. Feel free to revert the edit. Koalorka (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's OK, just try to be more careful. I din't think you were vandalizing. Btw, the Aircraft Infobox sizing is set on the template page. It is actually already at 300px, so you don't have to do anything to it to make it 300px. It's different than some other templates where you can change the size on each article page. Confusing, huh? - BillCJ (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, that would explain why I couldn't get it to work. Thanks for clearing that up. Koalorka (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag template
Hey Koalorka! I'm writing to tell you about USN flag, which is a template that was developed to put flags into U.S. Navy infoboxes. Though we used to put the jack onto articles, current consensus is to use the ensign. The jack is only flown while the ship is in port, so the ensign is considered a better choice. When the template is used, instead of a specific image file, it's possible for all ship articles that use it to reflect current consensus on what flag should be used. Please do not replace uses of USN flag with images of the jack. If you would like to talk about what flag is used, and potentially change the consensus, please come to WP:SHIPS and post about it. TomTheHand (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the update! I wasn't quite sure what the new standard was, I will replace the jack with the USN flag in all my maritime edits. I have no issue with the current policy. Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem! I also wanted to comment on the infobox that you're putting onto articles.  You're using Ship table, which was renamed to Infobox Ship in April 2006, so you're hitting a redirect unnecessarily.  It would be better to use Infobox Ship directly, but you may also want to consider reading about the current ship template at Infobox Ship Example; WP:SHIPS considers Infobox Ship deprecated. TomTheHand (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 10-4, will clean that up. Regarding the current template, if it has been deprecated, which one is most appropriate? Thank you. Koalorka (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ship table no longer exists; it's just a redirect to Infobox Ship. Infobox Ship is deprecated, but it supports most of the functionality that people need, so many people still use it and I'm not going to tell anyone they need to stop.  However, the multi-template infobox described at Infobox Ship Example is the current infobox. TomTheHand (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. No need to support outdated templates, I have no problem applying the latter. Koalorka (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have any questions about using the new infobox, let me know! I can probably help out. TomTheHand (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unit fixes
Sorry to keep harassing you! In this edit, you changed "39,400 tons (40,032 t)" to "39,400 tons (40,032 tons)". The original text is specifying a displacement in long tons, followed by the displacement in metric tons, or tonnes, the abbreviation for which is "t". They're different units, and t shouldn't be expanded out to "tons". TomTheHand (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I see that you're unlinking dates. When dates are linked, it is possible for the Wiki software to automatically format them according to the reader's preference, so the manual of style on dates and numbers states that they should always be linked. Note that that only applies to month-day combinations (like December 3 or 17 March), or month-day-year combinations (like October 11, 1776 or 23 February 1962), not individual years or months. TomTheHand (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

...And the manual of style also states that non-breaking spaces should be used between numbers and units, so that they don't split over line breaks. A non-breaking space is specified like this: & nbsp; but without the space between the ampersand and the text. Please don't remove these. In general, if you see something that looks strange to you, but it's widely used, please try to find out why it's done like that instead of immediately removing it. TomTheHand (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. Don't want to be seen as disruptive here. I'll change back what I can. Koalorka (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the date issue, it would appear that the folks over at the manual of style for dates and numbers are in the process of abolishing their longstanding "link all dates" guideline; might want to hold off on touching dates either way for now! TomTheHand (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kbkm wz. 2003
A tag has been placed on Kbkm wz. 2003 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 06:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Kbkm wz. 2003
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kbkm wz. 2003, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Kbkm wz. 2003. &mdash;Bo L  @  06:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FN SCAR images
I don't know if I should really go asking for more, Gabe Bailey was very generous for sending those images to me. I was actually very surprised that someone bothered to respond, usually anything not to do with sales, questions or problems is ignored by most firearm manufacturers. I don't know if asking for anymore might be considered greedy. You can have a try if you want, either send an email to info@fnhusa.com or straight to Gabe at gabeb@fnhusa.com. Hayden120 (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, that's very kind of them, I wouldn't want to abuse their generosity. Good work, they look great. Koalorka (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why move thumbnails from left to right ?
Why are you moving photo thumbnails from left to right side, for all the British artillery ? The whole point of putting thumbnails on the left side is that they then appear correctly aligned with the text to which they apply. Now they appear at the end, below the infobox, far away from the relevant text, which is useless. Also, why have you removed all the center tags ? Also, why have you remove flag templates for USA ? You are wrecking these articles visually and haven't actually contributed anything to them. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is the reason why: Manual of Style: Images. Generally right-side alignment is preferred but if causing unreasonable clutter or distortions, can be staggered to the left. Image thumbnails have a default size, so no need to manually adjust the size. The centering doesn't really serve a purpose. The project wide standard is to simply input the text without any additional tags apart from links and stylistic formats. I'm simply trying to standardize articles within the WikiProject Milhistory. Please don't view this as an outsider dictating style for you, we certainly appreciate the contributions, just trying to bring a little order into the chaos. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my aggressive tone, thanks for your tolerance. The problem with right side thumbnails is that they get placed after the infobox, which can be pretty long, and hence they lose their alignment with the text they are illustrating. This looks like a bug in the Wiki design to me - I think |right| should place them inside the main body of the text i.e. to the left of the infobox. regards. Rod.Rcbutcher (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I guess the right alignment works better with longer articles. If you feel it is too disruptive, feel free to revert said images back. Koalorka (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2008 (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) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RPK-74
Akurat mam zupełnie inne IP, w dodatku stałe i należące do ŚTK a nie Tiscali UK Ltd :P A RPK-74 ma mniej wspólnego z RPK niż AK-74 z Tantalem. Ale na en-wiki jest tyle bzdur że jedna więcej nie zawadzi, choć jak widać nie tylko mnie ta bezsensowna integracja wadzi :) Nemo5576 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha, przeparaszam, musialem zle spojrzec na liste. Bzdur? Haha, usmiejesz Sie jesli podam Tobie zrodlo skad zaczerpalem tekst na artykul o RPK/RPK-74.... :D Koalorka (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No to poraź mnie informacją jakie zespoły RPK i RPK-74 są wymienne :)? To różne bronie, o zbliżonej konstrukcji, ale mające ze sobą tyle wspólnego co np. AKM i AK-74. Je też planujesz zintegrować? Nemo5576 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wymiennosc czesci jest ponad 80%, z tym, ze sa to przewaznie sprezyny, kolki itp. Jest to ten sam system broni co RPK, tylko zmodernizowany wspolnie z karabinkiem AK-74, Sowieci uwazaja go za bron pochodna od RPK. Samo WAT oraz Ryszard Wozniewicz go tak klasyfikuja... Koalorka (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wymienność części pomiędzy AKM i RPK oraz AK-74 i RPK-74 jest pewnie jeszcze większa. RPK-74 jest w takim samym stopniu pochodną RPK jak AK-74 pochodną AKM. Równie dobrze możesz zintegrować wszystkie artykuły a pochodnych AK-47. To dobiero będzie kobyłą ;) Nemo5576 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Owszem, mozna, ale wtedy bylby kolos wielkosci paru TerBajtow jak w przypadku M16. Prowadze podobne polemiki na temat podzialow FN MAG oraz M240, MINIMI/M249, M16 na M16A1, A2 oraz AK-47 na AKM. Koalorka (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Z MAGiem to można różnie. Ja uważam że wersje amerykańskie wyewoluowały w odrębną rodzinę i zasługują na własny artykuł. Podobnie z Minimi. M16 to odział raczej z wygody niż z rzeczywistej potrzeby. A AK-47 i AKM to różne karabiny. Podobne, ale właściwie w każdym podzespole widać różnice. Nemo5576 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jesli taka jest Twoja opinia nt. AKM moglbys sie wypowiedziec na stronie Talk:AK-47. Potzebne sa nam glosy, sporo osob sie nam sprzeciwia, wiekszosc nie widziala ani AK ani AK zywcem ale sie wypowiada i to zdecydowanie. Koalorka (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wypowiadać się nie będę bo mój angielski wyjątkowo nędzny jest ;) Różnice pomiędzy AK, a AKM pewno znasz więc je wymień a to mówi samo za siebie. Większość podzespołów jest ze sobą zamienna, ale różni się konstrukcją. Nawet bagnety czy celowniki tych karabinów są różne. Jak chcesz przekopiuj bibliografię do kbkm wz. 2003 z pl-wiki, właśnie ją uzupełniłem :) Nemo5576 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nie szkodzi, potrzebny jest nam jeszcze conajmniej jeden glos, wstaw SUPPORT i sie podpisz i wystarczy. :D Koalorka (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Glock pistols edit warring
Please stop contributing to the edit war over Glock pistol articles. Please see discussion on Talk:Glock pistols. Further widespread edit warring will lead to blocks against participants. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not an edit war, it's reverting the vandalism and arbitrary reversals by MalikCarr, we had a consensus that was established over the period of several weeks. I will revert all of the reversals. Koalorka (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an edit war and I and other admins will block you if you continue. Use the talk page.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would you do that? Instead of pestering serious contributors to the firearms community why don't you introduce Mr. Carr to the concept of consensus? You have no authority to block me, I was not involved in any edit warring I am simply executing policy. Mr. Carr made his argument in the discussion, but support for the merges overruled any voices of dissent. There is nothing else to say that hasn't been already argued, so further discussion will not serve any purpose as Mr. Carr has chosen to override the consensus with his arbitrary edits. Please look into his history, he is rather notorious for it. Koalorka (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy on edit warring clearly gives any administrator authority to intervene and stop edit wars. This clearly qualifies. Stop making widespread changes.  Go to the talk page and discuss it.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I have previously not taken part in any edits of the Glock articles so I have by definition not "warred" with anyone about anything. Your accusation of me "warring" does not give you the right to arbitrarily block me. We had discussed this over weeks, Asams10, I and others made our arguments and garnered support. Mr. Carr presented one inarticulate argument at some point and now he has ignored our hard-earned consensus altogether by engaging in an edit war. I am executing policy, we had informed Mr. Carr to make his case, which he hasn't. Please I urge you to engage Mr. Carr with the concept of community and consensus before blocking serious contributers. Asams10 is FAR more credible than Malik WRT firearms knowledge, Mr. Carr has little credibility here. Koalorka (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am rather familiar with the discussion that happened on Talk:Glock pistol. I participated in it. There was not a consensus to merge. Asams10 merged boldly, and had a plurality of support, but Malik's objection requires further discussion rather than attempting to force changes. Attempting to force the changes without consensus or even further discussion on the talk page is the definition of an edit war. If two sides form up in an edit war, edits by more than one person together count under three revert policy and all editors participating in the reversion fight can be blocked. You are welcome to help try and resolve the discussion on the talk page and form a real consensus there. Don't short circuit that by edit warring the articles further. It's not OK, and doing it right in front of an administrator is sort of foolish... Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You made two further reverts after my warning of 20:44 above; any more reverts after this final warning and I will issue a 24 hour block on your account. Stop now and discuss on Talk:Glock pistol.  Thank you.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Glock 38
First of all, I haven't read your consensus because no-one has pointed the location out to me, and I can't be bothered seeking it out, for a couple of very simple reasons: 1. What you're doing is tantamount to deleting the articles of concern without an AFD. 2. Wikiprojects do not dictate guidelines, you'll find that articles fall under wp:product and as such, this is the basis I am reverting Glock 38 under. Nor does Wikiproject firarms (or whatever project you're in) own the articles. 3. I don't think that the Glock 38 is any more or less notable than any other glock, it is just the pistol article that I have been involved in editinge... so, until you create an AFD to delete and redirect, i will keep reverting. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The articles are not being deleted. Unique content from each of the variants will be recycled and reused in the main Glock pistol article. Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, a single article isn't the best way to represent 30 or so different seperate different pistols with all their technical and historical data. Secondly, what you are doing is no different from deletion, so if you want to delete and redirect, take to AFD. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ  Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No need. We have widespread support. All the variants are still part of the same family, if you knew anything about the pistol you would know. I don't care how many variants there, are, if there were 100, we still wouldn't dedicate a page to each one for they are essentially the same firearm with a few different components to accommodate the different calibers. Koalorka (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassing you?
Where on earth did you get this idea? I don't get why you are so sensitive, it makes editing pages quite awkward. And saying that you will go around editing all my inaccurate edits is not fair and is a very immature response. Wikipedia is run on a community; it is not a one-man operation. You have to get along with others. I was just going along with what the others wanted and reverted the merge. Don't take it out on me please. Secondly, I find it strange that you want to split the AK-47 and AKM articles when there is less difference between those two than there is there AK-74 and the AKS-74U. Hayden120 (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's your view of the AK family than you have clearly never handled one. I spoke to Izhmash on several occasions and the AKM is an entirely different firearm according to them, from handling and characteristics to the production methods employed. They also agree with me on the AKS-74U, it's a short AKS-74. The people that spoke out against the merge are plain wrong and are rather relying on some gut instinct rather than any factual knowledge or familiarity with the AK family. We also use to have a quite large separate entry on the AKS-74, how do you explain that? It's equally illogical as is the AKS-74U split. Koalorka (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we then merge the M4 and the M16 articles? They have very similar characteristics. Hayden120 (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, in all honesty it should be. More than half of the M4 page is pop gun-babble and resembles an online armchair commando discussion more than an encyclopedic article. It's lower down on my priority list. I believe Asams10 had already proposed the merge and it was mercilessly shot down by the misinformed masses and anime fans/counter-strike kiddies. Koalorka (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't see any 'pop gun-babble' nor do I see any 'online armchair commando discussion'. Could you please cite me some examples? (P.S. There is no need to stereotype either thank you.) Hayden120 (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just re-read it, I was probably thinking of the Bushmaster commercial. Koalorka (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhhu, well I can't see any and you aren't showing me any in either the Bushmaster M4 or M4 Carbine articles, so please don't make statements you can't defend. I remember you had the idea of splitting up the M16 page, has that idea been scratched? By the way, I've noticed you've been adding instructions on how to load firearms (such as the AKM article); we used to have sections like this until guidelines were set that Wikipedia isn't supposed to have this. Apparently all instructional writing must be in Wikibooks. (Also, these 'armchair commando' comments are not really relevant if you do not have a military background. Have you been in any armed forces? A civilian shooter could be regarded as armchair commando.) Hayden120 (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have abandoned the idea of the M16 split, it's beyond my scope and the opposition was to severe. The instructions on the AKM are not authored by me, it's what remained of the page when it was renamed from the previous AKMS (Polish variant). I haven't had the chance to write the AKM article yet. Koalorka (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and lucky you with an easy access to lots of firearms. If only it was that easy in Australia; semi-autos are effectively completely prohibited. I haven't got the luxury of waltzing into a gun store and picking up a couple of AR-15s. Handling a firearm is a great privilege for me. The irony is, most of the guns I've handled are fully automatics such as the MP7 which most people, even living with the loosest of laws, would dream of touching. Hayden120 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of the restrictive laws is Australia, that the public reacted to a deranged man with an AR-15 by punishing all of its law-abiding gun owners is very unfortunate and irrational. Of course the ban did nothing to prevent violent crime, offenders have access to guns as always from the black market and don't concern themselves with some useless piece of legislation. Same situation in the UK... Canada where I live has some restrictive laws too, but does give us access to some neat toys providing we have a range membership. Incidentally I was offered the MP7 in semi-automatic of course for $2500. Although it's pretty useless as a defensive or target firearm I think I'll pick it up for the novelty factor. I also have your standard array of AR-15's (M4 clones and a Mk 18 clone), Glock 17, HK USP, P7, Benelli M4 Super 90, B+T TP9 and my favorite - a semi SG 552. Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I wasn't invited here, but I must point out that Wikipedia did not use to have a large entry on the AKS-74, it was one sentence long, on how it had a different stock.--LWF (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Glock pistol
I know you're sick of me pestering you, but could you please put the references back that you removed? There are now no references in the variants section. Also, some of the variants such as the Tasmanian version were removed. Hayden120 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They will all be restored, no worries. The Tasmanian variant will go into users. I'm working on it. Koalorka (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

MP5K merger
I'm a little curious why you did this again; the MP5K is not a simple stockless MP5 - the bolt and receiver are shorter at the back, and the lighter bolt leads to higher rate of fire.

Simple shorter/longer barrel or stock changes are covered by the WP:Guns variants in same article policy, but changes in the mechanism (new shorter bolt) aren't. The trigger group is the only common major part between the MP5 and MP5K models.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, features already mentioned in detail on the MP5 page. If your criteria for new gun article are dimensional similarities/differences of the bolt/carrier mechanism, I'd say we're for some dramatic changes to how our articles have been structured.. Koalorka (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not already mentioned in detail on the MP5 page. Losing stuff like this in "mergers" is why you and Asams have so many people pissed off at you right now.  Please go read the details of the MP5 article.  It mentions shorter barrel (check, not a qualifier for different article), no stock (check, not a qualifier for different article), shortened cocking handle (check, not a qualifier...), and vertical handgrip.  No mention of the shorter receiver and bolt mechanism.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It does now.--LWF (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. And I apologize for berating the case rather than just fixing it - but this sloppyness is causing much stress and dispute.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I checked the final version before the merger, and I didn't find any mention of the lighter, shorter bolt and receiver. Not quite what I would call sloppiness, but now the information is available, so good work has been done anyway.--LWF (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaint
A complaint was brought forth against you here. In my opinion the complaint bears weight. Your comments do appear to violate WP:NPA. I'd like to inform you that users have been blocked in the past. As a fellow wikipedian, who would like to see you stay on wikipedia and make a positive contribution, I advise you to keep your comments in accordance with WP:NPA. Note that you are free (and encouraged) to leave messages regarding this complaint here.Bless sins (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been blocked for 24 hours for continuing the attacks. Please exercise restraint. El_C 06:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read this!
Just for fun User:Igorberger/Social engineering (Internet) Igor Berger (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

John Lee Love
Please do not re-add speedy deletion tags once an admin has already declined your request, as you did to the above article. Doing so is disruptive, and can ultimately lead to blocks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent uploads of Walther firearms
These image was deleted as per WP:CSD due to the copyright disclaimer on the source website. ("Alle Texte, Bilder, Audio-Dateien und weitere hier veröffentlichte Informationen, mit Ausnahme der gekennzeichneten Artikel, unterliegen dem Copyright der CARL WALTHER GmbH Sportwaffen. Eine Reproduktion oder Wiedergabe des Ganzen oder von Teilen ist ohne eine schriftliche Genehmigung der Carl Walther GmbH ausgeschlossen!") Do you have any proof that Walther released this image under a Creative Commons license? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I noticed this image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walther_SSP.jpg. The user also claims to have the image released under CC but has no proof, which I assume was lost when the image was moved to Commons. I will verify this with Walther. Koalorka (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation. I think Image:Walther SSP.jpg was a copyright violation that went undetected, I've nominated the commons copy for deletion. If you think there's any chance that Walther would release promotional materials under a free license, that would be great news for the project! There's some helpful advice about obtaining such permission over at U:RFC. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AUG Optics
Put an explanation into the dicussion page of the article --Sf (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch MP5
I undid your POV edit here. The information is relevant to readers of the article. Weapon-crazy rednecks may not like it, but I couldn't care less. It is relevant to the article subject, it is not at all out of proportion to mention it in one sentence and it has two references. User:Dorftrottel 22:52, February 10, 2008


 * POV? Do you know what that refers too? "Weapon-crazy rednecks"? Well reality challenged socialist hippie campus granola munchers may not like it, but the Red Army Faction was not in any way involved with the MP5. However, the MP5 was used by them, so you can go ahead and mention it on the RAF page. Best regards from the real world. Koalorka (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reality challenged? Das von jemandem, der sein Weltbild vermutlich aus so erlesenen Quellen wie http://www.pi-news.net/ bezieht. However, please check up on WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. The information is of course included in the RAF article, but it's just as relevant to the MP5 article (if not more so). User:Dorftrottel 00:12, February 11, 2008


 * You will find everyone with relevant firearm experience will tell you otherwise. Unless you're seeking an edit war and arbitration that will deem your request unreasonable and a violation of policy.... If that's the case, revert away. Also notice how your trivia has already been removed. Splinter terrorist groups are not officially recognized organizations. Koalorka (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, another weapon fan instantly reverted. I suggested filing for an independent third opinion or an WP:RFC. One hint: "firearm experience" does not help one determine whether a specific piece of information is relevant in an encyclopedic article...

"Splinter terrorist groups are not officially recognized organizations." — Well, we do have an article about them and it does cite some sources... You may want to consider nominating it for deletion if you think it's non-notable. On a related note, Conservapedia or Metapedia.org may be closer aligned to your kind of reality. Why not try there? User:Dorftrottel 00:21, February 11, 2008


 * You don't have any sort of valid argument. Please provide one or don't waste my time. We will not be seeking a third-party opinion simply to entertain some random and irrelevant request. And I have acclimatized here very nicely thank you. I find eradicating English Wikipedia's obvious socialist slant very refreshing because irrational leftists are very easy to defeat with logic and reason. Leftists are by nature very limited and irrational people. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (sigh) Ok, I'm going to file for a WP:3 then. User:Dorftrottel 00:29, February 11, 2008


 * Please do. It will change nothing in the long run. But like I said, irrational leftists will pursue their agendas until humiliated before withdrawing. Koalorka (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I filed for a third opinion. You may want to provide your rational arguments at Talk:Heckler & Koch MP5. User:Dorftrottel 00:40, February 11, 2008


 * Just did. :D Koalorka (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument so far is not oriented towards encyclopedic considerations. User:Dorftrottel 01:01, February 11, 2008


 * Your arrogant insults also leave a lot to be desired. What goes around comes around. Learn, young grasshopper. :) Koalorka (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to help you here. You're not currently making a strong case for leaving that information out of the article. Believe me, I'm eager to let myself be convinced with good arguments in order to settle this peacefully (I like peace and such irrational leftist stuff). Btw, I have served in the army. Have you? User:Dorftrottel 01:08, February 11, 2008


 * Ooooh, nice jab at us evil warmongers. And you wonder why most leftists are treated like children with a mild brain aneurysm... You're not arguing me, I've made my case with my single revert, you're arguing against the NO TRVIA policy on the project page. Koalorka (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "NO TRVIA policy on the project page"? Can you provide a link to that page? User:Dorftrottel 01:29, February 11, 2008

I believe Koalorka means WP:AVTRIV, and WP:GUNS, and a little bit of WP:GUNS. The former being a Wikipedia guideline, and the later two being WikiProject Firarms guidelines.--LWF (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, yes. Koalorka (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the WP:TRIVIA style guideline discusses trivia sections, just as GUNS does. Moreover, I for one wouldn't call the terrorist acts of the RAF a "pop culture" event. GUNS doesn't apply because the sentence specifically mentions the (not in itself criminal) depiction in the RAF insignia. User:Dorftrottel 01:42, February 11, 2008


 * To put these in perspective, while the two you mentioned do say sections, it is implicit in the statements that it is not the sections that are objected to, it is the information contained within them. And the pop culture guideline and criminal use guideline are in fact applicable because they lay down standards for inclusion, in this case, did the use of the MP5 in the insignia generate legislation? did it make the MP5 more notorious? Did it have any notable effect on the MP5 at all? If it has, then it could possibly be included, if a citation were found, verifying the effects. If these conditions are not met, then it shouldn't be included because it has had no notable effect on the MP5.--LWF (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, WP:TRIVIA specifically addresses the organization of information. To quote the page: "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belong in Wikipedia." At any rate, the threshold created by the WP:GUNS "guideline" is arbitrary and defies policy. Whether or not it had an effect on the MP5 is irrelevant: It is a notable bit (as verified by sources). User:Dorftrottel 02:01, February 11, 2008


 * Something else for a change

I don't like myself if I don't manage to recognise something positive about people I have an exchange with. I've given it some thought, and regardless of our banter, I think it's a good thing that you do have an attitude. It's not one I can personally identify with, but I don't have to. Nihilists without any ethos or attitude are the ones I'm actually worried about. User:Dorftrottel 21:24, February 11, 2008


 * I don't quite follow... Either way, no hard feelings, but it was you that started with the mudslinging. Gun enthusiasts that I know are far from the stereotypical militant redneck. They are young professionals, lawyers, doctors, law enforcement people, soldiers, seniors, people of colour etc. I don't think it's fair the way you categorized us all. Koalorka (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Chauchat Magazine.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Chauchat Magazine.jpg, has been listed at because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Corvus cornix talk  00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Glock 18
The Glock 18 is functionaly a different weapon from other Glock pistols. It is visualy similar, but functions with different parts that are not interchangable with other Glock pistols. What next, the Beretta 93 gets merged with the Beretta 92? Alyeska (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to start again. This was determined by a majority consensus. You are welcome to debate this on the Glock main page and put up "split" tags on that page. That's the only option, otherwise, I will revert every move. Koalorka (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny, I remember majority consensus agreeing to keep the page separate because the gun is mechanically different from the rest. You merge pages for things that are similar.  The Glock-18 is not similar.  Alyeska (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Glock pistol
I'm confused. I revised and clarified the Glock article. It took me a while and you jumped in and reverted it wholesale without discussion or anything else. Could you please talk about it and explain what was wrong with it. I thought it was in good faith and, frankly, it read alot better. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Check your talk page. Koalorka (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 11:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

PPS design details
Rather than changing each others posts like children, can we please take the issue to the discussions section so that we can debate the issue properly? Thanks GunpicsBAS (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

MR223
If you say it is just a variant I suggest you do itto the PS 90, FS 2000, SL8 USC otherwise I', going to revert. before Unrevert, plz post clear reason why. User:Kullwarrior —Preceding comment was added at 02:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would, I did with the USC and trying to convince people with the PS90 and FS2000. Koalorka (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Colt M4 MWS Carbine Iraq.jpg
Bei diesem Bild fehlen die Quellen. Bist du eingentlich der gleiche User wie bei den Commons?--Sanandros (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Das bestimmt. Ich behebe die Beschreibung. Koalorka (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimax 100
Just curious, what is the best format you have in mind? And, isn't Singapore the primary user of this weapon at section level? If that is true, please revert to my edit, thank you. -- Dave1185 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The project is now using flag|XXX as the standard template. This allows users not entirely familiar with country abbreviations to easily add content. Singapore is a primary user, but we still sort alphabetically. Koalorka (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So that would mean that people who are not familiar with this article would come to the conclusion of having no idea whatsoever who the primary user is? Am I right to say that? Oh humbug! I'm adding the clause "primary user" to Singapore whether you like it or not. -- Dave1185 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty implicit, reading the first few sentences of the introduction. Koalorka (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look here just in case you didn't noticed, I edited SAR-21 before Ultimax, so shoot me! -- Dave1185 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's great, but just please use the proper flag template. Thanks.Koalorka (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess IMI Tavor TAR-21 is your pet project, huh? Do what you wish, I wash my hands. -- Dave1185 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

None of my pages are pet projects, I simply remove incorrect or unhelpful edits and vandalism. If you have some valuable piece of information, wish to expand on a technical aspect of a firearm etc, by all means, you are most welcome and even encouraged to contribute. Koalorka (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Minimi in .308?
Did I read your email traffic right? Are they selling this in .308? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct, I'm uploading some pictures into the Minimi article. One already there, check em out. I hope the Commons admins will let these pass, FN sent me some great images of the FAL, FNC (finally something decent), P90 and MAG. Koalorka (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They did send you a P90! Excellent, I had hoped someone would get a high-resolution image of it that wasn't mostly obstructed. Also interesting to get advance word about the Minimi in .308.--LWF (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I received 6 photos of various P90 variants as well as a few more configurations of the 7.62 Minimi. I can't fit them all into the article, but if you'd like, shoot me your email and I'll send what I have. Koalorka (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for jumping in Koalorka, but would you be able to get photos of the entire FN line? Maybe some Five-Seven shots? Just curious because I remember you messaged me a while ago about this, good opportunity to get lots of images. Also, you can upload all of your images (including the ones you couldn't fit in the articles) into the Commons and put them into the particular firearm's gallery. Galleries can also be created within the pages if it gets to crowded. Thanks. Hayden120 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Izhmash AK-74M.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Izhmash AK-74M.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zedla (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

HK45
The HK images I'm using on HK45 and P30 are copyrighted images (from this awesome brochure) under a fair-use claim; currently there are no free replacements so it is acceptable to use them. Was a damn shame all your FN images got deleted, I think it was mainly because it was a mass upload and a lack of trust after the history of your previous uploads. Don't give up yet though, you can get permission to use those images by proving that these have been approved for use by sending an email here: [permissions-commons@wikimedia.org]

Just send a collection of emails received from FN and hopefully we can have them on Wikipedia. Also, on another note, did you end up getting an MP7? Would be an interesting novelty to have, though the ammunition would be quite expensive I'd suspect. Am I correct that Questar has 30 or so MP7s almost ready for sale? Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an awesome catalogue, do you think you could re-use some other images from the brochure under fair use? We could really use the image of the HK69, GMG, UMP and several MP5 variants. I'll give the FN and IWI images another try with the OTRS group. The MP7 deal fell through as the dealer was unable to secure the guns from his source at a reasonable price. Koalorka (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

SVD article
''Sorry, we don't cater to the intellectually challenged. It's a technical description. You might as well argue that the page lacks wheelchair accessibility.''

There's no reason to be a jerk, Koalarka.

"Wheel chair accessibility"? Are you kidding with this? Or is such puerility* the best you can do?

I have an IQ between 185 and 200 (two tests, two different results), a good 100 points higher than yours, I'd be willing to wager. And no, combing firearms manuals and regurgitating what you read doesn't make you expert. A wikipedia article shouldn't require a reader to bring expert knowledge to the subject. If one's an expert why would one need an encyclopedia article?!?

I'm putting the tag back and I will keep reverting it as often as you remove it. You can't win; the most you can do is give up.


 * (to save you the trip to the dictionary, it means, juvenile, as in, an ill-mannered child)

PainMan (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I have no option but report you to an administrator. Koalorka (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Running to the teacher? Do your best, stud.  You'll pardon me if I don't shake in my boots--but people who use the anonymity of the net to hurl insults they'd never have the cojones to say to someone's face are worthy only of ridicule.


 * IF--and I realize how far I've gone into the subjunctive--you're willing to find some way to equitably arbitrate this, I'm willing. If you're only interesting in calling names, I'll have no choice but to report you for your gratuitous, completely uncalled for personal attack on me.
 * PainMan (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image FNC
But in that image the gun lookc much smaller and it bearly focuses on it -- Climax-Void   Chat  or  My Contributions

MP5 once more
User:John has made imo very agreeable comments regarding the info. Maybe you should comment there instead of simply reverting. User:Dorftrottel 23:31, February 15, 2008
 * And again. User:Dorftrottel 12:41, February 17, 2008

Uploaded Images
Hi just wanted to say great work on getting permission on all those high quality images —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climax Void (talk • contribs) 1 April, 2008

CETME Ameli edits
Greetings - I would like to know what you found objectionable in my edits for the CETME Ameli article - I eliminated several run-on sentences, repetitive terminology (the word "Spanish" appears four times in the first sentence), and broke up the "Design Details" section into more easily readable paragraphs. I made no changes in the facts of the article.

Please enlighten me as to the reasons for the reverts. Thank you.

GMan552 (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of articles
I see you used the "Undo" feature to revert an entry to FN Minimi with no explanation as to why. Checking the history and talk page of that article I see a clear trend regarding your dominance of that page and would like to remind you that no one owns an article and that discussion and consensus are needed. Please consider this your first warning on this issue. Happy editing. — Ocat ecir T 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I did give an explanation. The edit destroys the layout of the page. Koalorka (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Images
Sorry for the late reply -- as for the HK images under fair-use, we have to justify why we need them. If there are already free images available then we can't really use them. I still recommend sending WikiCommons an email for permission to use the FN images; you have more than enough evidence to use them. I don't think I would have any more luck than you would as long as you send an email. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Sako TRG
I saw you chose an image of a Sako TRG with optional folding stock as info box illustration. Be advised the optional folding stock is rarely seen on TRG rifles, when compared to standard stocks. The rather stiff additional cost of kitting out a Sako TRG with the folding stock might be a reason for the rarity of thus kitted out TRG rifles. I feel a picture of a TRG with a standard stock and amongst military users popular Sako 3-ring scope mounting gives a more representative image of a typically kitted out TRG rifle system. Something that does not belong into the Wikipedia article on the TRG (it occurs rarely and not during normal use), is the fact that some users managed to brake their current model standard butt stock in the pistol grip area during rough handling/drop accidents.--Francis Flinch (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. I selected the image mainly because it was a clean profile shot on a white background. I'm trying to set this up as an aesthetic standard. Koalorka (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can get a clean profile image to your liking of an 8.6 TKIV 2000 (the TRG-42 as used by Finland with a FDF custom ordered Zeiss scope on top) from the FDF website. This image was originally used in the info box, but removed from Wikipedia for copyright reasons. Wikicommons states such governmental work is now free of copyright in Finland (it is referred to as Finnish copyright legislation of 2005) and can be tagged accordingly. I will upload that image to Wikicommons and change the images in the TRG article accordingly.--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be great! The FDF site contains some pretty good (albeit small) images of several unique firearms. Let me know when you have done this for the TRG and I will re-use your license template/infobox information for any remaining images that we may use. Koalorka (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. The license template/infobox information I just happend to find.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work, that should prove useful. Koalorka (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been informed that the images shown on the FDF website do not qualify for PD FinGov. A Finnish Wikipedian who tagged them for deletion provided arguments for that (Finnish law interprets the scope governmental works very strict). The Wikicommons PD FinGov tag has been changed to reduce the amount of good faith errors. I changed the few challenged pictures I uploaded to the attribution-license tag and for good measure copied the copyright notice from the FDF website to the letter. There might be people who will try to challenge that approach. Projecting non Finnish law on actual Finnish law will probably be the method employed, but the Finnish Wikipedian I corresponded with, and seems to know a lot more regarding Finnish law and how it is applied in practice in that jurisdiction than I, wrote the FDF has never expressed any objections with the usage of correctly attributed images.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Why don't you get a life?
I don't understand what kind of a pleasure you get in daily reverting "Eurasia" to "Asia" in the Turkey article. Israel is an "Asian" country, but Russia and Turkey are not simply "Asian" because most of their landmass is in the hypothetical continent of Asia (Eurasia is the "factual" continent). They both have territories in Europe, including their largest cities. 151.38.182.17 02:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Turkey is an Asian country. Calling Turkey Eurasian is analogous to saying Spain is an Eurafrican country because of its TINY enclaves on the North African coast. Turkey is socially, culturally and ethnically very distant from Europe, we have nothing in common. Koalorka 15:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing is sure, we have nothing in common with YOU and your alikes.
 * Yes, you want it or not Spain is an Eurafrican country, but it has not got any serious economic or cultural center on Africa, as opposed to Turkey, who does on Europe.
 * Have nice dreams! --Eae1983 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

European ethnic groups
Your removal of Turkic peoples from this article was unexplained. If you have supporting arguments/sources, please supply them on the talk page of the article. Please do not characterize my reversion of your unjustified blanking as vandalism; please do not say I am adding material, when you are removing material that has been accepted by consensus for months since User:Dbachmann's creation of this page. It is a meaningless use of the phrase. Some WP editors might even describe your removal of Turkic peoples as vandalism, since your edit summary was unhelpful ("This is not a demography article but european ethnic groups"). Please be more careful in future. Blanking of this sort can often hide some kind of agenda if not properly explained in discussion. Since you are not using the discussion page and have started edit warring (by removing data agreed by consensus without justification), you are making it hard to assume good faith. (This user box doesn't help either. ) Mathsci (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've analyzed the discussion page and most contributors seem to agree uniformly that Turkic people are not indigenous to Europe, so I do not know what consensus you are referring to. And since this is an article about native Europeans, it is only logical if alien groups who's recent ancestry can be traced to the steppes of Central Asia and Anatolia are removed. Koalorka (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that edit wars are a completely ineffective way of enforcing a change to an article. Better is to work out what the consensus is, on the talkpage.  Also, I must insist that all accusations of "vandalism" cease.  Wikipedia has clear definitions of what vandalism is and isn't (see WP:VANDAL).  The term is reserved for blatant situations, such as blanking a page or inserting profanity.  Other types of disagreement are classed as "content disputes", so should not be referred to as vandalism, as it is uncivil. --Elonka 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider injecting incorrect and false content into articles vandalism, since it is intended to mislead the reader and compromise the credibility of this encyclopedia. My experience also tells me that edit warring is rather unpractical, but if someone is driven by an agenda, I can be just as stubborn. Care to respond why you want to force a foreign Asian group of people under the European banner? What is your motivation? Koalorka (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on whether the Turkic people should or shouldn't be included on the page, but the accusations and edit-warring must stop. My own motivation is simply to decrease disruption. --Elonka 05:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You removed the group title and first line of the twelve lines in the article on Turkic peoples. For reasons best known to yourself, you left 10 other European ethnic groups that fall under the heading Turkic peoples. As a result of your edit, these groups appeared under a different and unrelated heading, rendering the article unreadable, misleading and inconsistent. Your edit was ill-considered and unjustified, since by your "reasoning" the other 10 groups should also have been removed. Please keep your private anti-Turkish sentiments, expressed quite unambiguously in the self-made user box on your user page, off other articles on this encyclopedia, where they have no place. Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your very disturbing use of the phrase "foreign asian group" seems to show no understanding of the physiogeographic concept of transcontinental country or of the fact that part of Turkey lies in the continent of Europe. There seems to be no ambiguity about that on WP. Please deal with these issues privately elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)