User talk:Squalla/Archive 1

Editing work
Thanks for the editing work you're doing on firearms and related categories. Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated. --Asams10 20:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm always doing what I can to improve articles, especially firearms-related ones.
 * Thank you once again for your compliments. :) --Squalla 23:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm especially grateful for all the editing you've done on the M1 Garand article - gave you a little barnstar for those. :D --Banana! 05:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha! Much appreciated, Banana!. I guess it's about time I have something in my user page, thanks for that. --Squalla 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mk_48_Mod_0.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:Mk_48_Mod_0.GIF. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging Image:MG 42.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MG 42.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Stan 02:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

On popular culture references to firearms
What_Wikipedia_is_not does not list popular cultures references as an example to avoid, and I fail to see how it is one. GLOCK 17, Desert Eagle (and its redirect Deagle), Accuracy International AWP/Accuracy International AWM, Heckler & Koch MP5, and all of FN P90 in popular culture suggest it is not applicable to the removal of major, influential pop culture references from Heckler & Koch MP7. I would be curious to see you further explicate your views on this matter. --CalculatinAvatar 07:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. You and others like you play video games and think that's what the guns are.  We, in the real world, want to know about the guns themselves.  There is no context for a video game that portrays a gun to be in an article about the gun itself.  Look at what user:Squalla edits.  He doesn't stomp on video game articles.  Stay out of the gun section and we'll agree not to stomp on the video game sections with 100 reasons why the gun is incorrectly portrayed.  Not like we have the time.--Asams10 08:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's not in the list. However, the name itself says it all: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that's what I was pointing towards. As I have already said several times, these sections tend to become trivia lists. And such lists are an indiscriminate collection of information — which are different from a brief mention of a weapon's relation to a certain character (for instance, Asams10's example of James Bond and the Walther PPK), or even an analysis of a weapon's status and influence in popular culture (e.g. the Thompson). Lists of indiscriminate trivia are one thing; a mention or analysis of a firearm's influence (or extensive appearance) in popular culture is another. So unless the latter instance is followed, I'll be there to keep it under control.


 * Asams, thanks for the input. —Squalla 19:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:MG 42.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MG 42.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Be Here Now
Well it's not going to be "bass" is it? There's plenty of bass on the album. There's plenty of every instrument that's out there and a couple that aren't. But what's the base of Be Here Now? There isn't one, it's just a sprawling layout of overlong, mediocer songs and Stand By Me. And All Around The World. And maybe one more. All the others has bases - Maybe was based in out and out rock and wanting to be a rock star, Glory found it's base in sweeping ballads and actually being a Rock Star, Giants is about coming down, Chemistry attempting to find your roots again and Truth is about actually finding them and making a good new ablum. Be Here Now is a muddle of nothingness. I'm guessing whoever put the quote on there saw it on TV and misheard/misinterpreted it.--Crestville 16:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not gonna discuss music with ya, I just didn't get what you meant by "base"; I get it know. Regardless, it would be nice to know where whoever put these quotes there got them from. —Squalla 17:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New firearm infobox
Thanks for all your corrections, the last thing I wanted to do was create annoying work like this for anyone. I suppose that is the evolutionary nature of Wiki; someone plugs in a new infobox and subsequently it's refined and improved, of course ideally I would have done a perfect job and not dick it up like I have in some instances ("7mm Mauser" hahaha). In my defense, it wasn't easy some cases, because there wasn't an infobox to start off with or just so few fields I could carry over that I had to sniff info from the article's main bodies (hence some choices on things like "type" e.g. personnel defence weapon instead of submachine gun (and apoligizes also for getting the latter's spelling incorrect)...

I've been looking at other corrections you've made:
 * en dash and em dash, I have always found and entered them with html tags which is valid according to the style guide Manual of Style (dashes), but I have now found the neater and easier ALT key combos :-)
 * Caliber, this is a new field, which I most often left blank, simply, because I wasn't sure what to put there and because it is optional.
 * Pic sizes, I sometimes increased them to 300 (from 250 or 275) when I think it won't impact the page since it made the infobox a little more readable.
 * Five-seveN, sights Fixed? Here is a link that says it's fixed on the [initial] military model, but adjustable on others: ...perhaps qualify fixed?. As for "iron sights" versus "open sights", I'm with you on this one, I prefer "open sights", but I just kept the wikilink as the page name.
 * Types, when choosing a type, I thought I'd be as specific as possible (wihtout going too crazy), because it would add more value and therefore preferred things like sniper rifle over simply rifle or pdw over submachine gun or general purpose machine gun over just machine gun?

All the pages I changed yesterday: Ak 4, Ak 5, Beretta 93R, MP40, Five-seveN, FN P90, FN FNC, Heckler & Koch (UMP/ MP5/ MP5K/ G3/ PSG1/ VP70/ MP7/ P7) Rheinmetall MG3, MG42, MG42, MG34, MG30, MAC-10, Rk 62, R4, SIG 552, SIG 550, Steyr AUG, Type 97 Sniper Rifle, TT-33, Makarov PM, M60, Dragunov, Vz 61, Walther PPK/ P88/ WA2000 and Uzi. I'll be converting some more today and will use everything you pointed out, thanks man! Deon Steyn 06:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

M24 SWS
Hi. I see you removed a section on M24 SWS. Please do not check "minor" when making such a large change. --GunnarRene 10:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox font size?
Question for you here, if you don't mind. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

.308 Winchester
I see you've added this to some of the infobox where the cartridge is 7.62 × 51 mm NATO. Check out the 7.62's page, they explain that the rounds are technically not exactly the same (loaded to different preasure levels) and a purely military firearm would be designed for - and use only - the "7.62 NATO". Something like a Remington 700 (and all sniper rifles based on it) could include both, because it's a commercial action probably designed rather for the .308 Winchester. So, I think for purely military arms we shouldn't include that designation, because under "caliber" it would include .308 which should be clear enough that it's related to the .308 Winchester? Deon Steyn 06:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was adding .308 Winchester to the table mostly because, even though the pressures are different in standard rounds, military firearms are capable of handling the civilian rounds (which are loaded to higher levels), and therefore both types are usable (though not perfectly safe). Since the 7.62 × 51 mm NATO article deals with the .308 Winchester as well, it should be okay to keep it to the primary round only on military weapons. —Squalla 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sniper rifle
Hi, from our previous interaction it is obvious that you are highly knowledgeable and also interested in the subject of small arms/firearms and weaponry in general. I would like to enlist your help in looking at the Sniper rifle article, because a user with a fairly limited history on wikipedia and has made substantial changes and additions that I feel detract from the article. He reverts changes and repeatedly pretends to answer criticisms and questions (using wordy and long winded arguments) and pretends to makes compromises in many edits (120 in 3 days). Maybe I'm crazy, I just though some other users might be interested in the state of this page and more voices might reach a better compromise/solution. See discussion on Talk:Sniper rifle and Talk:Sniper rifle. Thanks. Deon Steyn 15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just finished reading the "Capabilities" discussion, and I'll see what I can do about it. Honestly I haven't edited the Sniper rifle article before, so it's gonna take some time before I see what he has changed, etc. Also, I'm not very informed about sniper rifles, or at least its technicalities. Still, I may be of some help. As for the intro, I agree with you and Kirill Lokshin, no doubt about that. I'll reply with my thoughts shortly. Thanks for letting me know about the issues. —Squalla 16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I think as soon as other users can contribute to the discussions it would alreadt help. I will again attempt to change the intro and this time more user can wade in... Thanks again. Deon Steyn 14:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've done a cleanup of the introduction and reorganized/rewrote the "Types" section (renamed to "Classification"), and also moved a few images around to represent each class/type. I started the editing process before your edits (and subsequent edits by User:Qwasty), and only finished about 5 minutes ago. I tried including most of these in the edit I was already working on, so I may have left something out, so in case you're wondering, it wasn't intentional. Feel free to add back anything I may have accidentally removed (it shouldn't be much, if anything).
 * On another note, you have probably noticed that the article has grown too much, and is now over 33 kilobytes long (longer than ideal by Wikipedia's standards). We have a lot of work to do to trim down some of the sections, which are very likely to have overly-repeated information. I also think one of the priorities is to move some of the more military/police-specific information up to the "Classification" section, and then probably even move this section lower in the article afterwards. (More rifle-specific details should probably come first.) Let me know what you think. Thanks. —Squalla 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am going to report Qwasty for violating the 3 Revert Rule (second time, warned him the first as per guidelines). The biggest problem is his preoccupation with US gun control leading to his misguided attempts at obfuscating the article to such an extent that it is rendered general enough so as to be meaningless. This is also the reason why it now exceeds the the size guideline. Deon Steyn 06:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have filed the report, quite a process made more difficult by the complex nature of his reverts, see bottom of WP:AN/3RR. Deon Steyn 07:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job, hopefully that will discourage him from keeping his present attitude. As for the article, I agree. We have a lot of work to do to reduce the article to a good size, and remove all the loosely-related information added by Qwasty. —Squalla 16:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Article rating
I replied to your questions/concerns on the Military History Assessment talkpage. I hope that that helps you in seeing my reasoning. I believe why the Sniper weapon is B class is probably do to a lot of editing and work still on-going. One of the critera for a Good article is that most editing has slowed down. It is a good article and anyone can nominate a good article for the good article process. (You might also request a peer review to find out weak areas) It is an outside project from ours - tho the project is working on to do that assessment. More people are interested in writing an article then assessing,critic, or edit. If an article needs citations and verified references then it is also considered a B-class in my opinion but you would have to ask the assessor of that article. Any questions or concerns feel free to leave a message on my talkpage.--Oldwildbill 07:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: M1 Garand
Technically, GA tags only get applied to things that went through WP:GAC (as far as I know); I have no idea how the people working on that process would regard it, but it's more a question for them, as it's not dependent on our assessment scheme.

(Incidentally, all of the A-Class ratings at the moment are temporary, since we've just instituted a formal A-Class review; I wouldn't put too much weight behind them until an article actually goes through that. Here is the review for the Garand, if you're interested.) Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:MP5A4.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MP5A4.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Also Image:ACOG.jpg

CS weapons category
Hi, I noticed that you reverted a bit of the work I did yesterday on the Counterstrike weapons category. Reading from your page I see you have some strong views/history on editing weapons articles to remove pop culture items. I accept some of your reasoning that lists of trivia and a low level of discrimination is undesirable.

However, I would like you to reconsider the Counterstrike categorisation. This is a clearly defined category - not indiscriminate at all. Adding categories is a useful way of navigating related information (see Singapore for an example where it is possible to rapidly see articles of similar enitities). This was my aim in adding the categories.

Also, the categorisation work does not impact the article text at all. It doesn't damage the article.

Would you please reconsider/discuss your reversion? Thanks, novacatz 01:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how you posted to my discussion page as well and then deleted the deletion suggestion, I suggest you take your comments to the discussion page there. --Asams10 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (I'm not entirely sure where the discussion is taking place, at this point, so please feel free to copy my comments elsewhere as needed.)
 * Broadly speaking, I think the category is a bad idea for three reasons:
 * Generally, categories are meant to create a grouping based on some significant characteristic of a topic. For example, the AK-47: that it is an assault rifle, or a Soviet firearm, is clearly a major characteristic; that it happened to be used in some particular game, not so much.  The odds that a reader of the article would be interested in finding other assault rifles are much higher than that he would be intersted in finding other CS weapons.
 * On a more practical level, where do we stop? Why not a category of Max Payne weapons, or RTCW weapons, or Battlefield weapons, and so forth?  With an obscure weapon that gets one category, it won't be so bad; but iconic weapons will quickly get dozens, if not hundreds, of categories just to document every game in which they've appeared.
 * More pedantically, this approach seems like an end-run around the popular culture guidelines of the Military history WikiProject. The consensus is that simple lists of appearances in various media are trivia rather than proper encyclopedic material; merely having the list use categories rather than links doesn't really change that.
 * Kirill Lokshin 04:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:UMP 45.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:UMP 45.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment.
Could you comment on my request for adminship? --Asams10 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Firearms naming conventions
Eh, I don't think there's any hurry here; we can certainly mull things over further (and hopefully get some other editors commenting), as it's likely that whatever we decide on is going to apply to a lot of articles. :-) Kirill Lokshin 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject firearms
Since you frequently contribute in the firearms areas of Wikipedia, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject:Firearms. It will focus mainly on civilian firearms, though we will work in the military firearms area, although in those cases we will defer to WP:WEAPON. Thanks.--LWF 23:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates, period and commas
I noticed your work in editng the B-17 article has dates given in a "popular" format rather than the established historical or academic format. Please do not revert the dates; see the talk page on this article for the reasoning. I wrote the main aspects of the article and have established an academic format for dating. As to commas and periods that fall inside the quotation marks, this is an established editing convention for North America. It may not make sense to a European editor, but it is the Chicago Style Guide and earlier style guides that established the convention. Note it is a protocol or convention and you may have to refer to some style guides for the reasons for its use. It dates back to type-setting but it is the style. As for dashes- they are not normally used in academic writing as the comma, colon and semi-colon are the established means of conveying a link. Bzuk4:07 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I refer to Manual of Style when making style edits, which is the style guide that should (ideally) be followed for Wikipedia articles regardless of personal or regional preferences:
 * Dates: Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
 * Periods and commas inside quotation marks: Manual of Style


 * Dates are automatically formatted according to the user's preference, so it does not matter either way. I simply changed them to the more common formatting so it reflects the correct article titles (e.g. February 7), and not a redirect link.
 * As for the periods and commas, I followed the guideline, "include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ('logical' quotations)." Since most of the instances of quotation marks used within the article are not for full direct quotations (but merely for emphasis and nicknames), the punctuation should be left outside. —Squalla 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Manual of Style you will notice that the two formats are presented. The "more common formatting" does not apply to an essentially military-related article. If you check with other articles, you will notice that a formal, academic approach has been established for articles that are being written for a military or academic audience. Regardless, since the format was already established, it is generally agreed to leave it that way unless there are errors in useage or if there are date format conflicts. As to the use of commas and periods, read on: Quotation Marks: Where Do the Commas and Periods Go – and Why? by Tina Blue 17 March 2002 Whenever we have to use a question mark or an exclamation point with a sentence that ends in a quotation, we follow the dictates of logic in determining where the question mark or exclamation point goes. If it is part of the quotation itself, we put it inside the quotation marks, and if it governs the sentence as a whole but not the material being quoted, we put it outside the quotation marks.
 * Have you read the assigned short story, "Flowering Judas"?
 * No, but I did finally get around to reading last week's assignment, "Where Are They Now?"

'''When it comes to commas and periods, though, logic doesn't enter into the equation, at least not in the United States. Universal American usage places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, regardless of logic.'''
 * "Diane," she said, "put the book down and go outside for a little while."
 * "I will in a minute," she replied, "as soon as I finish this chapter."

This rule applies even when the unit enclosed at the end of the sentence is just a single word rather than an actual quotation:
 * To get to the next page, just press the little button marked "Enter."

The only exception is when that last little item enclosed in quotation marks is just a letter or a number, in which case the period or comma will go outside the closing quotation marks:
 * The buried treasure was marked on the map with a large "X".
 * The only grade that will satisfy her is an "A".
 * On this scale, the highest ranking is a "1", not a "10".

Also: I could go on and on about this- Wikepedia has adopted a "British" style of editing that is not only now out of favour but is referred to in Lynne Truss' "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" as an anachronism. Again, since the convention had already been started, leave it alone is the best advice. Please understand that this is not a "flame"  on my part; I am an editor "by trade" and deal with these issues on an ongoing basis. Bzuk 17:02 31 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Yes, I realize that both date formats are presented; as I stated above, I have only changed them in order to reflect the actual article titles for these dates—it is not my personal preference. Either way, it does not matter whether the dates are formatted in the common or the academic/military style, as the link will automatically change according to the user's preference. If the date is intended to appear one way only, a piped link should be used ( February 17 ) so that it overrides the automatic formatting function.
 * As for quotation marks, I understand the American convention, and I understand that this is common and formal practice in the United States. My point is, however, that Wikipedia has its own house style for quotation marks, and this style should preferably be followed regardless personal or regional preference. I'm neither American or British; in fact, I'm not even a native speaker of English, so I'm being neutral here and merely following the guideline established by Wikipedia.
 * The Manual of Style states, "we borrow one practice from U.S. usage and one from the rest of the world", the former being the use of double-quotes, and the latter being leaving punctuation inside of quotation marks only if the sense of punctuation is part of the quotation.
 * Again, I understand that the American style states otherwise, but Wikipedia does not exclusively follow American nor British conventions. There is a guideline for quotation marks, and it should preferably be followed. —Squalla 16:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Squalla, I understand that you "got" it in regards to the punctuation issues but the fact that Wikipedia has made an arbitary decision as to punctuation that no other publishing house in the United States, Canada and in many other parts of the world would accept leaves me with the understanding that the convention I have chosen is still acceptable if not "preferable" to the Wikipedia style guide. As to the dating convention; the reason for using one standard is to have the reader follow a consistent path, irregardless of the link. The fact that the majority of authorsof history and researchers now use the formal dating convention is the reason to use it. BTW Have a Happy New Year Bzuk 14:59 2 January 207 (UTC).


 * But why should the convention you have chosen be preferred over Wikipedia's own convention? This is Wikipedia we are editing after all, and it has its own guidelines for punctuation and general style. This is not another "publishing house" in Canada or the United States; this is a free online encyclopedia edited by users all over the world, and thus uses "mixed" conventions from all over the world. Just as this guideline may look "wrong" to you, it looks perfectly fine to me. In contrast, I have a hard time reading the American convention for punctuation, as I find it awkward myself, but I'm constantly editing articles with other conventions I find awkward, which are the standard in Wikipedia. Again, I'm just following the guidelines, I hope you can understand that. Happy New Year! —Squalla 15:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Squalla, the style I employ is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. There is a "Wikipedia" preferred style but it is not mandated. Bzuk 4:54 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I wouldn't dispute that if the article was a work of your own, but as a public work by countless editors, I just refuse to accept that "the way you want it to be" should be used instead of the common style. —Squalla 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Page moves
I had not seen the previous discussion on the page names. I hope you can understand I was simply trying to make it correct in accordance with the U.S. military designation system. I have seen your attention to detail and I think you can appreciate that. For the time being though I will certainly stop due to prior discussion in the project about this. Ve3


 * Hey chief, you missed a few on the M3 submachine gun changes. Looking at how they were displayed, you may not have realized there were over 50 links and missed a second page.  I caught them though.  Thanks for jumping in... Deathbunny 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't realize you were changing all links in the body of the articles; I though we were just fixing double redirect pages... My bad. —Squalla 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything but Talk, User, and "Wikipedia" pages (archive, Task Force, etc.) See why I'm bitching? (smirk)Deathbunny 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep... I've been there before, man. :-D —Squalla 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)