User talk:Nukes4Tots/Archive 1

You might find this interesting. -- Yaf (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read through his history. Looks like he's just a nutcase with a long history of sock puppetry starting (maybe) with a user named Jetwave Dave.  Quite a waste of time for legitemate users. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, N4T. I've removed this little...nugget. It's in the history if you want to link to it in future. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment
The matter is being dealt with now, well done for keeping your cool. Happy editing, Chafford (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Currently the user in question has been blocked. Feel free to remove the above comments from your talk page, if they make you uncomfortable. Looks like you handled yourself well. I'd be interested in hearing about it, if you have any further problems with this. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm one step ahead of Luna here :) Thanks for holding ground against that weirdo :)   weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

M1 Carbine
And how exactly is the photo required for reader comprehension in M1 Carbine? Does the article talk about Malcolm X at all? No. Even if it did, it would have to discuss the photo itself, as is done in Malcolm X. There's no way you can justify its use in M1 Carbine -- as it stands, it's pretty much the example cited in WP:NFC Images #2. Note that I'm not asking for the image's deletion; it just doesn't belong here.  howcheng  {chat} 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your opinion, but it's just that. This is, in fact, a matter of opinion.  You don't decree that you are right, it's a community decision.  This, being a concensus addition, should not be arbitrarily removed.  If you weren't part of the concensus, check the talk page, edit histories, etc.  The community seems to be for its inclusion on the page, though I understand you are not.  Please take this to the M1 talk page as I doubt people will be reading this. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, we're beyond opinion here - we're at the "if you keep ignoring policy, you'll be blocked" stage. So, please do not re-insert the picture into that article, and please do review WP:NFCC, specifically the sections pointed out to you already, several times.  Also, do not call people "racist", as you did in the edit summary here.  If you have an issue with our polices, bring them up on the appropriate talk page.  Stop reverting people for enforcing them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't respond to threats. Especially if you're wrong. NFCC Guideline 2 states, "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses." That does no apply here as this was a historical event that cannot be reproduced. Further, the Policy he keeps quoting is, "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That's a matter of concensus opinion in this case, as I've made clear in the talk page and on edit summaries.  So, unless you're an admin and you've decided to arbitrate this... uh... you're wrong too. As for being a racist, I made my case for that his actions were racist clear enough, so I doubt you've read that case at all.  Please don't go off half-cocked. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for Edit warring and inappropriate use of non-free content despite being warned to stop. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts: (others prior), , , ,. You'll note from WP:3RR that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". Other people are attempting to enforce our Non free content policies, which exempts them from 3RR, as stated here. You are clearly violating this section (among others) of the NFC policy. You don't need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun ; it just isn't necessary, as Fair use requires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "You do not need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun." This statement strikes me as a pejorative statement about guns.  The image is of the firearm!  How much more gunlike do you need an image to be?  Nobody is addressing my primary argument, that whether or not it's appropriate is a matter of opinion.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the image is of Malcolm X; he just happens to be holding a gun. Should we include that same photo in the article about neckties, or suits just because he happens to be in possession of them?  I think not. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The photo was signifigant BECAUSE of the firearm, not merely because of Malcolm X. Your necktie analogy is absurd.  That it was significant TO the gun was clearly stated on numerous entries by myself and others as well as edit comments and the talk page for the photo itself.  Instead of discussing this, you banned me?  While you may disagree, that is your OPINION.  You're interpreting your opinion about its significance rather than the actual rule to block me.  I'm expressing my opinion and defending a prior concensus on the matter.  Hardly fair... but of course, that's my OPINION. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd ask that any reviewing administrator to also see the discussion at Talk:M1 carbine, where several administrators (4 if I counted correctly, including myself), amongst others, point out the relevant policies and guidelines. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I've blocked you, a lot has been happening on that article. Lots of reverting by lots of people. I dont think it is fair to leave only you blocked at this point, so I'd be willing to unblock you assuming that you agree to not edit war any further (on that page, or any other). There is no reason you cannot discuss civilly, without reverting the edits until a decision is made. Its your call. If you agree to stop edit warring, just request unblock again, noting so. (Also note that the page is going to be protected to prevent anybody else from edit warring) - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X
Hi. I'd appreciate if you didn't remove the images from the article. Other articles have images that don't include the subject but are relevant to the article, such as Emma Goldman. I'm trying to get the article to Featured article status, and one of the criteria is that the article should have images.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, other featured articles such as Emma Goldman have done the same thing. But delete what you think is appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jetwave Dave
Please see Requests for checkuser/Case/Jetwave Dave. I've properly formatted the case page and left you some questions to answer. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

re:Jetwave
Yeah, you could say that I've had a run in or two with out mutual friend. There's been probably a dozen more that have popped up that aren't listed on either of the checkusers, mostly variations on my username or real name. Thankfully, the off-wiki harassment has mostly stopped by now, and he now busies himself with creating accounts like User:Parsecboy is a Paedophile that are easily tracked and blocked. I'm not sure how User:DroneZone turned up as unrelated, as it is a name used frequently by Jetwave, and the edits follow the same pattern, especially the fascination with the Korobov prototypes. Some of the photos he's uploaded are the exact same photos Jetwave loves to post in the various weapons forums. I can only hope, in a gallows humor sort of way, that he's moved on from me and latched himself on to you :) But seriously, if and when more of his socks pop up, I'll be more than happy to block on site. Oh, and User:Dmcdevit is aware of the Jetwave situation, and I've been taking socks one or two at a time to him to checkuser for a while now. I'm sure he'll work with you as well. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Odd. Poor kid probably has some significant psychological disorder.  Tedious.  It's a shame.  The TKB-022 was an intriguing series of prototypes.  They pioneered the rising chamber and forward ejection tube.  The rising chamber was duplicated (partially) by the Steyr ACR.  It's now a key feature in caseless and telescoped plastic case research in the US.  Instead of a simple rising chamber, they're using a pivoting chamber.  Simpler and more robust, I guess.  The forward ejection tunnel is used on the FN-2000 and Kel-Tec .308 rifle (RBF?).  A serious article on the subject might be of passing interest to some.  Too bad the current articles are tainted. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, (and this may be some idiot spouting off, for all I know), the guy was discharged from some cadet school in the UK, and barred enlistment into the British Army on psychological grounds. It is too bad that the articles he's created are tainted to a degree. Some day, it might be good to delete them completely and start from scratch. Parsecboy (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This guy sure does love to stalk people and post their personal information, thankfully I chose to only use this user name on wikis, so he couldn't track me down to anywhere else. I can't believe that DroneZone was unrelated, I am positive that it's jetwave, their edit histories are almost exactly the same with the exception of jetwave's obsession with trans-gendered british military personnel. I think he got around the checksum somehow. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, where's there's smoke, there's fire. Your instincts are probably good on that puppet as well. He's been denied already enough times he's likely learning how to cover his tracks. I did a search for some of the prototypes he's interested in and noted that most of the posts on military images.com about these guns are from shadowy characters (probably the same guy) that end up getting banned for similar reasons as he got banned here. It seems that ALL of his firearms information is sourced from the Tula museum.  Again, odd. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Input on C7/C8 merge proposal
I would appreciate your input on the new proposal to merge the C8 page with the C7 page (Discuss). I believe it was abruptly ended the last time, and that the lack of "consensus" was based on false observations and inaccurate understandings, as much as legitimate points. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms
Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gas operation proposal
See my proposal at User talk:Geodkyt. I think we all need to lay out sources first, where everyone can see them, and then work on a compromise that is well referenced and takes all sources into account. scot (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice slam, thanks
I noticed your comment on reverting my edit. That will help condition me for more face slaps by the stock market. If you were to accord the benefit of the doubt that I had made the edit in good faith, you would not have removed the text which disambiguates one Hiram Maxim from the other. Apparently you feel it is more useful to have the reader click to Hiram Maxim, whose page title has been changed to resolve this ambiguity, to Hiram Stevens Maxim to distinguish this Hiram, inventor of the Maxim Gun, from son, Hiram Percy Maxim, inventor of the Maxim Silencer. My research did not uncover why this is not a useful clarification. What does yours show? Newportm (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, nt entirely sure how to read your edits. I reverted your edits because they were inappropriate, not because I intended to personally insult you.  You added a statement about the Maxim Silencer under the Maxim Gun's introduction.  Inappropriate.  You added information about the US Firearms Corp under the FN 1910 and the two are completely unrelated.  Your dubious edits are unreferenced.  Please be more careful in the future and consider not making edits unless you have a reference.  What does this have to do with the stock market?  How did I make you feel that I didn't think you were operating in good faith?  I've assumed good faith and I Was giving you constructive advice.  Please assume good faith from me as well. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you find mention of the Maxim Silencer inappropriate in connection with mention of Hiram Percy Maxim on the Maxim gun page associated with Hiram Stevens Maxim, it is because you know about one hundred times more about guns and related things than most readers. Don't you think that the majority of the people who use Wikipedia are probably not "perfect readers," and that our burden as editors is to reach out to more, rather than fewer, readers.  Therefore, while it is true that the Maxim gun was invented by Hiram Maxim, is it not more true to state that it was invented by Hiram Stevens Maxim.  If mention of his son, who also designed implements related to guns, is inappropriate on this page about the Maxim gun, you could simply have edited that part out and left the Hiram Stevens Maxim name intact.  Just because you can easily revert with one click doesn't mean you always need to pull that trigger.  How about if we add a footnote to this first paragraph pointing out that he had a son, Hiram Percy Maxim, who is credited with the Maxim Silencer.  Doesn't that seem like a more encyclopedic option than just deleting everthing? Newportm (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an inappropriate edit, I reverted it. It's incumbant on you to get it right.  If it was a simple correction, I'd have made it.  You and I must disagree that it's the least bit relevant. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting this company's info for tangentially related...
This company you refer to owns the Maxim name, all rights to manufacture under it, has a large archive of its materials, produces this product, and therefore can hardly be considered to be tangential to the thing itself. Newportm (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then verify it. But, the FN 1910 is completely unrelated as is the Maxim Silencer to the Maxim Gun.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is cited on the U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Company page. It may change your mind about the Model 1910 made by USFA  being related to the FN model 1910. Newportm (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I read this first. They are making a M1911 clone and using the designation M1910.  There are hundreds of things called the M1910, but this one happens to be unrelated to the FN Model 1910. A simple glance at the picture would suffice. Reading the text, however, reveals that it's related to the Colt M1910, not the FN 1910.  This is basic, simple stuff.  Please, again, READ what you're referencing and learn something prior to posting. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. Newportm (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Garand Cite
In this edit, you tried to add a citation to the Garand article. It is a named "knaack". Unfortunately that ref name is not defined in that article, causing an error message in the reference list at the bottom. Nor does it appear to be in the edit history such that I could resurrect it for you. Can you provide the complete citation? --J Clear (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian club
I notice you reverted Garand described as "Canadian". Since I imagine many Canadians, even firearms enthusiasts, don't know he was born here (I didn't till not so long ago, & most sources I've seen (few as they are, admittedly} don't mention it), would you have a problem with it being "Canadian-born"?  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's clear in the article on Garand himself. I'm a Rush fan myslef and love Canada, but I don't think it's appropriate as Garand immigrated when he was very young and wasn't known to identify himself as either Canadian or Canadian Born. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the good work you doing with gun-related articles! --Boris Barowski (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks! I try. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jetwave has followed us to Commons
Hi, Nukes. I wanted to let you know a recent checkuser I filed on Commons turned up Nuke4Tot, another Jetwave sock aimed at harassing you. I reverted his edits to your Commons user and talk pages, but it's likely he'll continue socking on Commons, so you'll want to keep an eye out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Assitance with Misr/AKM
Hi, User:Orthopraxia is revert-warring with me over the Misr copy of the AKM, it's a straightforward copy of the Soviet AKM, he has not even bothered arguing his point and accused me of vandalism, which indicates he is there to troll or doing it out of blind nationalism (he claims to be Egyptian). I would appreciate if you could weigh in your opinion on the talk page. He also seems to be inserting Egypt as a user for many other modern Western weapon types (UMP, Minimi) without providing any sort of references, keep an eye out on him. Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins have been notified regarding this user. Koalorka (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed we have. See Koalorka's page for discussion, if you're interested. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :)  07:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pistol cartridge Pmax
The information source is C.I.P.. If you download the C.I.P. decisions, texts and tables (free current C.I.P. CD-ROM version download (100+ MB in ZIP and RAR format)) you can look up a vast amount of legal and technical information and technical drawings regarding ammunition and firearms in English, French or German. Under "Tables" you find, amongst other data, Pmax data for almost every commercially produced cartridge. In C.I.P. member states (like the UK) this data is used as the only applicable legal standard. C.I.P. uses the metric system to express quantities. For pressure you have to know 10 bar = 1 MPa, so 3250 bar = 325.00 MPa.

Please note that the C.I.P. technical drawings are copyrighted, so please do not copy and paste them into Wikipedia. Since the 9 mm Luger (its official C.I.P. nomenclature) is a German cartridge (Germany is a C.I.P. member state), I think the C.I.P. Pmax can be regarded as an appropriate source in this case. There are also relations between C.I.P. and NATO EPVAT testing standards. NATO obviously chose to ignore SAAMI standards.

The American equivalent of C.I.P. is the SAAMI although operating differently. SAAMI is a manufacturer's association. In contrast to C.I.P.’s decisions the recommendations of SAAMI have not the force of law. These two main ammunition standards organisations are cooperating in an effort to unify their rules, though there are still hard at work to solve differences between their rules. These differences consist of varying chamber dimensions and maximum allowed chamber pressures. There are also technical variations in the way chamber pressures are measured giving different results.

If you are aware where SAAMI publishes its data on the internet that information would be great for Wikipedia. As long as SAAMI data can not be directly accessed from the SAAMI website itself, I personally tend to question SAAMI data cited somewhat, since the cited SAAMI data on Wikipedia comes from third party sources.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have to say that SAAMI is the only one of the two that I've heard quoted with any regularity. Further, it's an American association and... hate to say it, but The American sporting market is bigger than the rest of the world markets combined. Since about 90% of the world reloading market is in the US or Canada, I'm hard-pressed to accept the euro-centric body just because their data is easilly accessed.  Further, the figures you listed were significantly different from those listed in the source I referenced.  It's not that I mind so much, however if we're going to agree on one source, it needs to be discussed thoroughly under the firearms project, not on my talk page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nukes. And if we're going to start using CIP data in the absence of SAAMI data, it should be explicitly sourced as such or else it will be both misleading and confusing to the many knowledgeable people who are generally familiar with SAAMI specs.--Ana Nim (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd go further. I think that if we're sourcing CIP data and the rest of the shooting press is sourcing SAAMI data (and they are) then our data is going to look 'funny' and lack credibility.  Why should a European body dictate what pressures we use here on Wikipedia? I really don't think that CIP is as authoritative as SAAMI nor do I think ANY ammo article here needs CIP data. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Participation requested
Nukes, you might find the discussion at Talk:B-2 Spirit interesting. I think your perspective on the issues raised by User:Critical Chris would be valuable here. Thanks for looking. - BillCJ (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for participating. I hope this can be settled soom. - BillCJ (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack
I do not appreciate being called a "twit", and furthermore, that puts YOU in violation of No personal attacks. When someone makes a mistake, you explain it, not be a fucking jackass about it. Maybe you should clean up your "shit" before you accuse everyone else of adding it. 206.130.99.180 (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My, you're a cheery one, aren't you? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

M1 Garand Type
The last guy to make an edit put both types of rifles in the info box. That seems fine by me, and I'm willing to drop a subject as silly as what we should label the M1 Garand on Wikipedia! I hope we can put this behind us. Akyoyo94 (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all 1's and 0's to me. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR?
Seriously, you have got to BS-ing me here, haven't you heard of Don't template the regulars? Plus, what I did was adding a simple video clip into the article even if it was after you guys had insisted on that a "30 round clip" isn't the same as a "30 round magazine". Tell me now, what is your good reason for removing that video clip after I had made the appropriate changes to it per "community standard"? I'd love to hear about it. And if you can't provide a convincing reason, I will add it back per WP:IAR regardless of you citing me for 3RR. ...Dave1185 (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You've GOT to be kidding me? I'm treating you like a novice because you're ACTING like a novice and engaging in an edit war about which you seem to display little knowledge.  Discuss it on the talk page and please, avoid posting condescending messages on others talk pages.  Your juvenile response is telling. It's awful brazen of you to go against the community and violate the 3RR.  I feel like you're either trolling or just enjoy being a dick.  Either way, the outcome can't help your position. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Taken from the page WP:DTTR: "Template warnings are very generic, and sometimes out of date. Sometimes a template says never to do something which is nevertheless allowed in certain circumstances. Sometimes Wikipedia has multiple rules which are contradictory. If a rules violation is not clear-cut, an amicable resolution to the problem is going to require a human explanation, not an automated template." ...Dave1185 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, stop overquoting WP guidelines. In this case, the template was spot-on and you were violating it by goading an edit war.  I noticed that although your comments clearly supported your view that You and God were right, you did not yet make that fourth edit.  Interesting. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I've said, I can wait (There is no deadline). Another thing, ever heard of technical foul? Ha! ...Dave1185 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FN P90
Hi,

I notice that you've recently been involved in discussion on the Talk:FN P90 page. I'm trying to make some copyedits to that article and meeting significant opposition of a personal, rather than constructive, nature; as you've worked with the editor most opposed to my changes before, is there any chance you could weigh in on what I've proposed? The thread is at Talk:FN P90, and the most recent version of the article using the new layout I came up with is here. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

P-51
I reverted the edit you made in the P-51 article about when the plane was retired. While it was retired by the USAF in 1957, it served on until 1984 with the Dominican Air Force. It also was to involved in combat with that plane in 1965 and was also used in the 1969 Football War. The P-51 served with numerous air forces throughtout the '70s.--Panzertank (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Small arms height
Why is the height parameter not suitable for rifles? It's used in both official marketing material among the big manufacturers, why is it less suitable on the AUG than it is on the MP7? Koalorka (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have to disagree. Though I have seen Height listed, it is a useless measurement.  It adds nothing to the article, in my opinion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

thermonuclear sidearms
I too think every kid should be allowed to carry her own thermonuclear sidearm. Cheers for all you're doing to make the world a happier, safer place :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL. If you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is spot on why kids should be allowed to carry them. You never know when an outlaw might waylay your kid with a nuke on the way home from school or a long Saturday afternoon of playing video games. It's for the children. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

.30 carbine
continue the discussion in the References for "Civilian use" section already in Talk section of .30 carbine SJSA 19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

LAF as user of M249 Squad Automatic Weapon
Hey

You have rolled back my edit for the operators section in M249 Squad Automatic Weapon where I added the Lebanese Armed Forces as users of this weapon. Please have a look at these photos: -- Zaher1988 · Talk 23:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Photo one
 * 2) Photo two


 * Dude, that's an FN MINIMI. Plese provide a source that they use the M249 or go away. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please speak with a nicer tone? -- Zaher1988 · Talk 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering you addressed me with the salutation, "Hey", I was assuming that's how you wanted to keep the discourse. Whatever, your highness, I'm easy. At any rate, your worshipfulness, if you'd kindly read my edit comments as you should have done in the first place, you'll see that I had already told you why your edits were being reverted. So, you came in here, sire, and proceeded to cite pictures of the same weapon I'd said... the MINIMI! I'm sorry if you were not thorough enough, your holiness, to actually read the edit comments before you jumped over here to prove me right. Then you lecture me about my tone. I deeply and sincerely apologize for any real or perceived slight that my grammar might have burdened you with. Merry Christmas to you and yours. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Stockton massacre
Ok, so what's your problem? We have, besides others, articles about Seung-Hui Cho, Jeff Weise and Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold so providing information about the perpetrator is nothing new. As per WP:BIO1E I'd assume that the person in question does not merit his own article, which means that the information should be provided within the article about the massacre, which is also nothing special if you look  here and  here. And it's not that the article is that long already so a little bit more content wouldn't hurt. BTW you didn't provide any reason for reverting my edit besides your perceived balancing problems. And exactly what is disputet in my addition? And who are you anyway to throw around 3RR-templates. You certainly don't look like an admin. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I basically told you above why I did not add the content at the murderer's, but at the massacre's article. And so far you've not provided any reason, why my addition is disputed. So, I ask you again, what's your problem with the information I have added?
 * And no, I don't think you were nice, by simply ignoring my proposal to discuss this matter at the Talk-page, reverting my edit without giving any reason and slapping that 3RR-batch onto me.(Lord Gøn (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Okay, I'll assume good faith. Good faith implies that you didn't know about the 3RR, otherwise you would not have been edit warring. Further, I'll assume now that you don't know the procedure for editing. Add content. If the content is disputed, said content should be removed until it's discussed on the talk page and a concensus is reached. This is a community and you're trying to bully your your content. Moreover, it's my responsibility to put the 3RR template there, not an admin's. Finally, you are being awful abrasive about this when you aren't following guidelines on how the editing process should run. Understanding all of that, please plead your case on the talk page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as you can see at the examples provided above, what I have added to the Stockton massacre article, meaning that little biography about the perpetrator, is nothing unusual. So why should I ask for permission to include this information, if similar articles also contain biographies about the perpetrators? Sorry, but where's the reasoning here. It's not that I have committed the crime of doing something new and original. It has been done before by others and there were never any complaints. And further the article in question is part of the  WikiProject Biography, but there was, so far, no biography there. So, I don't see any problem with the information I have added and why it could ever be a matter of dispute. And, I'm sorry, but your initial reason for reverting my edit "The article needs some serious balance out of respect for the victims and history." sounds to me like "I feel offended by this, so shove it up your ass!" So, reverting my edit multiple times, plus the 3RR-template looked to me, as if you were desperately trying to get rid of information that you found to be  offensive.(Lord Gøn (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC))


 * You've been warned and you're refusing to discuss it on the talk page, preferring to edit war. You're violating civility, assuming good faith, undue weight, and probably a few more that you're in danger of violating.  All you can say is that you've 'figured out my motives'.  Good luck with that. Take it to the article discussion page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mini 14 suggestions needed
"removed poorly placed information. First, it needs to be referenced. Second, it needs to be integrated into the text. This quasi-table is information that is useful to maybe 1 in 1000 people)"

Hmm, ok, yes, it needs referencing, cant' argue with that. :) Unfortunately, the references I'm finding are from forums rather than from Ruger. Would those be acceptable? I also agree it needs to be integrated into the text better, but I'm not sure where...any ideas? Gotta disagree about it's usefulness. Twist rate is crucial for accuracy (though I'm well aware of the criticisms involving the mini's accuracy :) ) and is useful for both reloaders and shooters buying factory manufactured ammo. Any suggestions you may have are appreciated. Tengu99 (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ruger & His Guns" lists this data. It's a fairly thorough book. Current twist can be verified here: . The Libraries usually have this book.  I can't locate my copy now. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

FN P90 operators
You have removed Lebanon from the list though it was already there for ages, and what I did was only to clarify what forces use it. And you are asking for a source, well I can't provide materials as sources other than photos from the military parade and from various event; however, it is common on Wikipedia not to accept these photos are a source. So I suggest you keep Lebanon and simply put next to it until someone find a written text mentioning that. -- Zaher1988 · Talk | Contributions 11:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE
 * I only have a reference for the country as a whole (as Lebanon) not the security branches that use it in Lebanon -- Zaher1988 · Talk | Contributions 12:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it's not legitemate. If you listed the USA as a user without a reference, that's a reason to keep it with just a fact tag.  But Lebanon has a history of being added to each and every firearm article because somebody's cousin in Beiruit bought one on the black market.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not putting Lebanon as a whole, I have specified security branches using it.
 * Do you need more than these proofs? and
 * -- Zaher1988 · Talk | Contributions 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pictures are not verification. I've got pictures of me shooting an Austyer.  Does that mean that the US Military uses the Austeyr?  No.  I've also carried the British SA80 on active duty while training with the Brits.  Pictures are not good enough. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * These are photos from the military parade for god's sake, the flags of Lebanon are all over, the badge on the shoulder of the republican guard soldiers is so clear, you can see the badge on the Lebanese Army official website here! it is not a single soldier taking a photo, it is a whole company marching during the military parade on Lebanon's independence day. Thank you -- Zaher1988 · Talk | Contributions 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no offense meant. I'm convinced, but my being convinced does not meet Wikipedia standards.  Here's a thought, just leave it off the list until a verifiable source can be found that 'says' that Lebanon has purchased the and operates it.  The United States has made HUGE purchases of firearms over the years that it has never used.  It provides them to friendly nations, insurgent groups, and sometimes just buys them to keep other people from buying them.  Bottom line is that given the secrecy and myriad possibilities associated with arms and their use, the likelyhood that in some way, the pictures were staged is high enough to preclude verifiability.  I can recall an instance where hundreds of replica AK-47s were 'issued' to women for a parade in Iraq or Lebanon... not sure which now. The thought, of course, was that they were arming their women.  Nothing of the sort.  Beyond all of this, it's not about the picture, it's about all pictures in general.  I can photoshop a picture of Abraham Lincoln with a P90, does that mean I can count him as a user? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave you two photos, but I can give you tens, with different places and situations, i would be stupid to photoshop them all and it will be really not realistic to think that they staged them all. My suggestion is to keep Lebanon, however request citation, because we have a strong proof, but to be fair with you and we both okay let's assume it a half proof, and we still need a written one. So we keep it in the list, put a next to it so that readers and users can notice that this requires verification and more people will be working on finding a resource, which makes finding one easier and more possible. Regards -- Zaher1988  · Talk | Contributions 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Expecting a reply...-- Zaher1988 · Talk | Contributions 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with fact tagging it now. Not looking at the pictures, you might want to list the links on the talk page and solicit a verifiable reference.  Understand how others have ruined it for everybody by adding every country to every firearm without a lick of evidence.  I make it a habit to revert dubious entries, most of which are passing edits by folks who play a little too many video games.  The P90 is especially vulnerable, for one, and Lebanon has a history of being added to every firearm out there.  Nothing personal, just trying to stem the flood of misinformation. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I will readd Lebanon and fact tag it. I will also link the photos on the talk page and ask for text reference -- Zaher1988 · Talk | Contributions 09:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai
No oil drilling platforms are taller than the Burj Dubai. If there really is, I'd like to know the name. 64.80.57.251 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC) User:Daniel Christensen. Forgot to sign in.


 * Please. The Magnlia oil platform is 1,432m vs. the 818m of the Dubai oil-money tower. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Walther_PP
You just reverted my edit to the Walther PP page, saying the SIG P230 is "completely different save from the fact it's a pistol." I would ask you to explain/verify that. It says right in the article "but the refined SIG P230 and the P232, owe much to the Walther PPK." How are SIG P230's not related to Walther PPK's? Thanks, Dictouray (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're asking me to defend one part of the article that's erroneous and citing another part that's also erroneous. The Walther PPK came about AFTER the Sauer 38H, the pistol on which the SIG P230 and P232 owe their parentage.  In fact, all of the above mentioned pistols owe their existence to two unmentioned pistols, the FN 1910 and Little Tom pistols.  They are both derivative and both developed in parallel. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not longer defending the fact that the SIG P230 came from the Walther PPK. I'm just saying they're related, so it has a place in the See Also section. If both the PPK and the P230 were developed in parallel from the same base, aren't they related? Dictouray (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, inasmuch as they are the same class, yes, however the article originally read that the SIG P230 and P232 owe their lineage to an earlier gun. Somebody mistakenly believed that earlier gun was the Walther PP being that's the gun the article was about.  In reality, the Walther, Sauer, and Mauser designs took parallel courses.  In that respect, they are related.  But, this is already well spelled-out in the article.  They were all German guns competing for the police and military market during the interwar years.  They were all based on Browning's FN1910 style slide, and general layout but all three differed drastically in virtually every other respect from the location of the magazine release to the particular double-action mechanism they chose to avoid the Tomiska patents or the competing designs' patents.  Modern spring-around-the-barrel designs are limited to the Sauer and PPK styles the Mauser having been discarded as largely inferior in key respects. Hope this helps. I understand what you are trying to say and my key point here is that it's already in the article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

civility warning
don't do this.

It doesn't work. This is a formal warning. You will be blocked next time. I hate to drop a bunch of links on you, but please heed Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and meta:Don't be a dick. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC) seriously, that was uncalled for, dude


 * The above arises from an AN/I listing. You can indeed get anything you want, and sometimes more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Walk right in, its around the back, about a half a mile from the railroad track (or was it a quarter mile? Dang, now I'm gonna have to go look it up) KillerChihuahua?!? 13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, I thought it was prose, not incivility. Meltdown... I was demonstrating a meltdown. At least somebody understood the vague social reference. Anywho, it was neither a personal attack nor uncivil.  As for being a dick, in the eye of the beholder.  Uncalled for?  Matter of opinion. I think it's odd that, though no personal attack or incident occurred, it was still reported as such.  Talk about not being a dick. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I just skimmed the edit summary and jumped to conclusions ^^; Apologies. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tone is often lost in the written word. No problem, I would have probably done the same.  This guy was being tedious but he made the right point so I agreed with him, added a reference that supported his, and even went so far as to write a sincere apology. Heck, that didn't work, so I tried sarcasm.  I agree, there were some strong words in there (carefully chosen to avoid a direct personal attack) and, yes, I might have been baiting.  But I feel the reasonable reader would interpret it as a tongue-in-cheek attempt, poorly placed and in somewhat bad taste given the way the one editor took it. My bad. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Final warning - civility and edit warring on Glock pistol
The incivility and edit warring, which you are fully participating in, has continued on the Talk:Glock pistols page and Glock pistols article.

This has violated edit warring policy, no personal attacks policy, and our civility policy. If this continues accounts will be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not engaging in personal attacks or incivil behavior. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to your notes here and on my talk page...
 * The talk page is not protected. Only the article, and only for 2 1/2 more days.
 * In terms of discussion - I strongly urge both you and Serialcomma to stop poking each other and launching personal attacks. I believe that both of you have done both on the talk page over the last week.  I don't want to pick someone to single out as worse or the person who started it - it needs to end, both of you need to back off.
 * If you can continue discussing without being rude or confrontational with him feel free to do so. If you do so and he continues to be rude and confrontational he'll be held accountable for that.  If you both take a cooling off period and re-engage later in a more constructive manner that works too.
 * It's hard not to have some chilling effect on legitimate discussion when you leave warnings like this, but the situation had degenerated enough that it needed to end. Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We're on two different pages with the incivility and personal attacks. The other user is crying NPA left and right, but he's also interpreting what I say wrong.  I quote Arlo Guthrie and he says I'm threatening to kill him.  I use the words "fucking moron" and he says I am CALLING him a fucking moron.  I use the phrase, "fool's errand" and he says I'm calling him a fool.  Not needing to be a judge here, but if he's that thin skinned, maybe he should stay away from the internet.  That off my chest, I will intentionally avoid words and phrases that anybody without a firm grasp of the English language might misinterpret as a personal attack or incivility. Of course, this is WAY outside my nature but as long as we all feel good about it, Jesus won't cry, eh?


 * When the discussion started, your ignorance of how he'd respond was understandable and acceptable. Now that you know how he's responding, continuing the way you had started out would be poking him with a stick, which is considered out of bounds even if the pokes are individually within bounds.
 * Your agreement to avoid doing so in the future is most appreciated. This would have been much less of a problem if he wasn't thin-skinned, but he is what he is, and the situation needs to calm down now.  I appreciate that you understand what he's responding to and will try and avoid doing more of it.  Thank you for that.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * for future reference, so we know how to gauge certain users' 'thin skin,' some might consider the implication that they "misinterpret" you because they don't have a "firm grasp of the english language" to be insulting, and therefore another personal attack. just an fyi Theserialcomma (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

M249
Please see talk page.-- Patton t / c 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Been there, done that. Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you on the talk page.-- Patton t / c 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Users list
I'm not sure if your recent edits to the "Users" list on the Glock page are appropriate. The list is not meant to be just a series of flags and model types. You've removed important dates and other vital information. The list should be as comprehensive as possible, within reason of course (I agree with you on excluding individual organizations if too great in number, like US law enforcement agencies). Koalorka (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I removed an important date inadvertantly, it should possibly go back in. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop edit warring.
First, you are edit warring to include unsourced information []. the glock.com source says nothing about "perceived" recoil, so i removed it. see WP:PROVEIT. second, it is not wikihounding to undo unsourced additions. "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and i have not followed you to multiple articles. i've only removed your unsourced additions and original research from glock pistols, which is what any editor is supposed to do. 'perceived' recoil is unencyclopedic, unsourced, original research, until proven otherwise. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Go away. You're editing the article to hound me.  Back the fuck off. Any retard understands the concept of recoil.  I only need to cite information that is likely to be disputed.  I don't need to cite each and every fucking word.  And no matter how much you're protesting, you've nit-picked everything I've done on Glock since you got your panties in an uproar over something.  Not sure what your problem is with me, but it's really fucking stupid. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * you're wrong, uncivil, and you need to WP:AGF, which is a policy here. other applicable policies are WP:NOR and WP:RS, which come into play | here (perceived? according to whom?). for the record, whatever unsourced and original research you've added to this article could have been added by anyone else, and i'd react the same way, because i am editing the article to make it better. your accusations are not helping anything. if you would read WP:PROVEIT, you'd see "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." since i've challenged your addition, the burden lies with you. it's blatant WP:NOR until proven otherwise with a reliable source. and i am not interested in edit warring with you even though you are clearly wrong. so maybe you could take a breather, have a mentos, and remove it yourself after you read the applicable policies. and calling me, or anyone, a retard is just a gross violation of incivility. very not cool. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're hounding me on my talk page. How civil am I supposed to be? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i'm not trying to hound you. i am trying to avoid an edit war by discussing with you the unsourced edit you have restored, still unsourced, and the inherent burden you have to provide a source or stop edit warring. i think we need admin intervention, because if you think i'm hounding you, and i think you're just adding unsourced content so i want to revert/discuss, and you're calling me a retard, then we have a problem. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * for your info, i brought the situation to the attention of WP:ANI at [] Theserialcomma (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What the fuck. Dude, you DON'T consider this harassment?  Do a fucking google search. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nukes
Your premise reminds me of a story, probably fromn Alan King, about sophisticated toys he ran into while holiday-shopping for his kids. One was a Nuclear War toy. It was subtitled, "Be the first on your block to be the last on your block." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That reminds me of a line in the movie "Full Metal Jacket". Something to the tune of, "I want to be the first kid on my block with a confirmed kill." --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There ya go. "Ah, they grow up so fast these days!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please offer to follow WP:Dispute resolution
Hello Nukes4Tots. I'm probably not the first admin to be seriously tempted to block you for personal attacks. There is currently a case open at WP:AN3 concerning your edits. We do have a process called WP:Dispute resolution, available to people who can't reach agreement. If you are willing to say anything at all conciliatory in that AN3 report, it might be closed with no action. If there is not the slightest initiative coming from you to reach an amicable settlement, I don't see a good result. The article has been full-protected once; I think the next step is going to be blocks for somebody. Make us an offer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The dispute ended in the separate thread on AN:I as I stated in my response to this "do-over" report. I don't know what needs to be solved as it's already been solved. He re-reported it despite the resolution which I complied with.  No need to make any offers or anything. What happens the next time, though, Ed?  This, what, three or four issues in, what, a week or so?  I've edited this article for how long and he jumps in and takes issue with everything I have to say?  Wikihounding... clear cut case. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. *Any* conciliatory gesture could have averted this result. We expect our editors to be grownups, and we shouldn't have to advise you every step of the way, to rescue you from intractable quarrels. See the AN3 discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, thank goodness I didn't make any insincere conciliatory gestures. Averted this result?  What result?  That I fought back when getting hounded? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in your response indicates you read my appeal and you don't address any points I made. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

removed your new source
if you want to discuss this civilly, the reason i removed your new source about 'perceived recoil' [] is because, yes, the source is about recoil, but it has nothing to do with glocks. that source would be more appropriate for an article about recoil. it would be like if someone added in the article about barack obama that he played point guard during his high school basketball career, but the source provided was just about what point guards do, not about barack obama playing point guard. the source wouldn't be directly relevant to the claim Theserialcomma (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm putting it back. It is about compensation in general.  I don't require a separate reference for each cartridge article saying that, "The .300 H&H Magnum is a cartridge designed to fire a bullet."  It is known that a cartridge fires a bullet.  If you're going to ask for a reference, ask for it on the cartridge (firearm) page, not on each and every individual page requiring that the reference points out that the .300 H&H Magnum fires a bullet.  Who knows, maybe the .244 Remington does not fire a bullet. Your logic is flawed and you are STILL hounding me.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * on one hand, you say that you want to discuss this civilly. but on the other hand, my good faith attempts to discuss anything with you is hounding. that doesn't make sense. also, threatening to go back to edit warring while you're still blocked for that is not a good start. and finally, i think you are misunderstanding what sources are supposed to be used for.  the source is supposed to directly back up the claim in the article. your source only talks about compensation in general, not a glock's perceived compensation. the fact is, the source you're attempting to edit war to include has nothing to do with glocks specifically. you could try adding it to an article about compensation, maybe. but the source is just a company trying to sell a product, so it probably wouldn't work there either. maybe the source could be use in an article about companies that makes compensation modifications? that could work. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir or Ma'am, I've already been punished for my perceived actions, I am not going to continue this conversation here. The fact is this is my edit and my reference.  You didn't like my edit so you reverted it.  Now there are three references on that page and you're questioning every one.  I get the distinct feeling that this is not about the content or the references, but I don't have a crystal ball. If you don't like the three references provided, report them to reliable sources... you already know how to do that. In the meantime, the references stay. Any further threatening posts you make on my talk page will be reverted, unread.  Take this up on the talk page for the Glock... out in the open. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)