User talk:Nukes4Tots/Archive 2

User NewYorkCityPhilantropy
I believe those edits are actually quite good for a novice editor. I've written entire articles without a single reference, sometimes, an unreferenced something is better than nothing. This particular user's edits seem to be correct with regards to the .40 S&W version and the QA trigger having owned the type. Koalorka (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean that Josh Woolensumthin fellow? He started his career by uploading obviously pirated images and then told me off when I warned him. Yeah, I came down on him. I'm here to improve gun articles, not form alliances or deal with vaginal drama. Koalorka (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it. The reason I reverted them was mostly because of the statement, "It should be noted." That really gets under my skin. Think, "It goes without stating" or the same such. Yes, I've been acused of being abrasive, however with what project members have I quarreled? I don't recall any. As I've stated numerous times before, it's all 1's and 0's to me although I'll admit that sometimes editors get tedious. I'd appreciate the constructive criticism. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I misread one of your comments, disregard, carry on. Koalorka (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User Nukes4Tots
This is actually my first contribution to wikipedia and I am still learning the very basics of how it works. To put your mind to rest, I found and added references which supported the statements I added (there is actually a lot more information on that site which can be added, and I will do so later). As far as the comment regarding the function of the QA trigger, I am unable to find a reference to what I am saying. Regardless, what I am stating is fact, as you know, and I feel that it is essential that this information be included on this wiki page. All other information on the page leads the reader to believe that the gun is only cocked when the striker is protruding from the slide, which is not true on the QA variant. This can lead to mishandling of the firearm by an inexperienced user, and that can obviously lead to injury or death. I hope that you agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewYorkCityPhilanthropy (talk • contribs) 03:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read-up on signing your posts. I appreciate your good faith and I apologize if my response is curt.  The main reason for my reverting your addition was that you provided neither a reference nor did you put an edit comment.  If the information is a fact, that's one thing, but Wikipedia does not deal in facts, they deal in Verifiability.  Read WP:Verify. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sten gun
I modified the page because I thought that:

The Mark I was a more finely finished weapon with a wooden foregrip and handle; some later versions were not quite as spartan.

is confusing at the very least. Looking at the later versions of the sten on the page seems to indicate that subsequent mods were introduced to simplify the gun, thus making it MORE spartan. I also got this on my watchlist page:

(diff) (hist). . Sten submachine gun‎; 03:18. . (+13) . . Nukes4Tots (Talk | contribs) (does not mean the same thing and ALL later variants were more spartan)

so what's going on? I'm new to this and don't know who changed the page or what your actions actually were.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad. You did the right thing, but I misread your comments.  I've changed it back. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate!Brutaldeluxe (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow

 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. I believe I've done yeoman's work on the Glock pistol article and to have a wikilawyer come in and pick fights with everybody over everything isn't going to pass without a fight on my part.  If you're in it to improve articles, I'll generally be right next to you.  If you're in it for the drama, I'll work just as hard again' ya. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Remington Model 770
Know anything about this model? An IP anon is putting a bunch of OR into the article, and I am not very knowledgeable on this model. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm probably not the best person to edit it, but I did clean it up some and warned him. I don't much care for the 710 or 770 and wouldn't buy them even if I need a gun and didn't have more money.  I'd buy used first.  Bolt is sticky, poorly finished, odd looking, etc.  It is just as accurate, though, and affordable as well as easy to get into without the trouble of mounting a scope.


 * Thanks! Yaf (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blindness
I suggest you don't re-revert this. Common sense says it just isn't worth it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
I've blocked you for 24h for edit warring at Clubbed thumb William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm OK I forgot to actually do this. So I've reverted the one edit you made before the nominal 24h expired. BTW, Sockpuppet investigations/Nukes4Tots exists William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed it after I was re-re-re-re-re-reported by Theserialcomma for, uh, well it doesn't really matter. At any rate, I did not notice that I had not physically been banned.  I looked at the timestamp and it said 1727 or something like that.  I didn't realize that my time and Wikipedia time are off. At any rate, it let me edit so I assumed the times were the same.  Confusing. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Stefanomencarelli
Regarding this user's comments on Talk:AIM-54 Phoenix: If you don't speak fairly fluent Italian, then you have no chance of really understanding anything he writes. He apparentlty writes in Itialian, and translates everything into English using an internet tranlator. It's either a poor translator, or his Italian in not too good either! (Perhaps both.) He is permanently banned from It.wiki, and was banned for a year here, both for bad behavior, bad editing, and so on. Just so you know! - BillCJ (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not the worst case I've seen. In fact we had an editor who spoke pure jibberish claiming that the AK-47 was a pistol or something like that.  This was over on the WP:GUNS side of my editing. Maybe he needs to be re-reported. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lee-Enfield
Unfortunately, I agree with the chap adding the Breaker Morant references. It might be an "Obscure Film" in the US but it's extremely well-known in Australia, along with the whole "Rule .303" thing. .303 means both the rifle AND the cartridge, so the reference definitely belongs in the Lee-Enfield article. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'mm leaving myself out of the .303 article completely, however I wholeheartedly disagree for the purposes I've already stated but primarily because there is nothing that directly influences the weapons themselves and the tie to the Lee Enfield rifle specifically is arguable. Thanks for adding your opinion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that this edit is certainly not reverting vandalism. The editor made a single, good faith edit though it was unsourced and inaccurate. This type of edit is certainly not vandalism, and your calling it such is not helpful, is bitey and could be considered disruptive. Please refrain from calling good-faith edits vandalism in the future, especially edits by newbies. The  Seeker 4   Talk  12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the impartiality. I'd caution that this was obviously vandalism to me.  Not knowing about the subject matter at hand is one thing, but this was neither a constructive edit nor an attempt at a constructive edit in my opinion. This came to your attention due to the ongoing vendetta of user:Theserialcomma, not because of any attempt to protect a newbie from anything.  I used a standard level 3 warning that says, "appears to be" not, "is" though I reverted it and I made the call about what I though it was. This seems like a petty thing to me.  I will continue to revert vandalism when I see it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy
There is a huge shitstorm over your behaviour going on across multiple pages. Really you should stop fighting with them or you're going to end up blocked. Why waste percious life insulting someone when you can be happy and do other things?-- Patton t / c 14:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice and I know it's good faith. I do not believe that my behavior is creating a "huge shitstorm".  Rather, I believe that a couple of bad editors like to throw tantrums when they don't get their way.  Rather than back down or compromise with people who know nothing about the articles they edit, I choose to stand my ground.  If that gets me banned, I don't care. I'll fight it, of course, but unlike these people I speak of, I just want a quality product.  If they ban me for that, then I'll move to a more tolerant community.  The day that Political Correctness takes over Wikipedia is the day I leave or am thrown out.  My conscience is clear on that point.  Happy to go.  The more important thing to remember is how many articles will be tainted by the blood of editors like me who try to make the articles good, however are thwarted by the ignorant? Again, if I can't edit, then Wikipedia is doomed to fail... philisophically of course.  It'll deteriorate into what the Washington Post has become.  What CNN has become.  Their loss. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry if it came across as bad faith. You can stand your ground without being banned. Just avoid swear words and insults ok? Firearms will go to heck if you get blocked.-- Patton t / c 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Swear words and insults don't usually fly easilly from me.  If you'll examine my edits, you'll find that there are very selective instances and editors that I've used them on, and usually gotten banned for incivility because of it.  I've learned my lessons.  Funny, Wikipedia doesn't like cuss words?  Have you seen some of the articles they have? Honestly, I called a certain path of editing a "fools' errand" once and an editor concluded I was calling him a fool because that's the editing path he would have suggested.  When you water your language down to the point you are trying to avoid insulting anybody, the end result is your language is meaningless.  People take offense to the strangest things. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)