User talk:Deathbunny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Deathbunny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Melchoir 10:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rules of Engagement

"What's your malfunction about this article? What are you afraid of? You can't handle the idea that something you don't like may have some value? What piece of factual information I posted do you have proof is false? If so, please send me links. Oh, and please send links with a neutral point of view."

No malfunction on this end. You need to calm down and start making sense. This is the second time you've tried insulting me behind an internet connection, an incredibly cowardly act.
I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days now and just yesterday intended to finish writing my response on the Talk page of the movie article. Unfortunately, I had to leave and save my incomplete response to Microsoft Notepad before posting it. I don't have time to spend more than a few hours a week editing Wikipedia. So if my response doesn't come fast enough to satisfy you, be aware that I have things to do and places to be (i.e. "a life"). I don't fear you, either in person nor behind a computer screen and I certainly don't fear any "Truth" which you claim to hold.
If you further fail to respond to me with respect and decency, I will report your abuse to an administrator.--Kitrus 22:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Insult you how? You asserted I was racist when I said nothing based on race or ethnic background except that there is a correlation between the behaviors in the film and real life in some instances. You accuse me of a behavior based on an irrational and unrealistic view of other people(s) and then deny an attempt to report fact-based information. That's pretty screwed up, I say.
I understand that you don't like the film and you see it as a racist piece of propaganda. If you look at it a particular way, you can easily interpret it that way. I got that. What doesn't change is the fact that the point of the movie may not have been as a vehicle for racism or that anyone in the group of people who put it together even intended it as racist.
I can see why you may not want to see anything of value in something you see as offensive, but it doesn't change the fact that there may be. I didn't alter anything that said that many people saw it as offensive. That's factual, I didn't fuck with it. I'm not judging the film or that interpretation as good or bad or right or wrong. I only added what else was there.
Perhaps the movie would have been less offensive if it had been made as a science fiction film with aliens as the members of the crowd outside an embassy or something. Instead, the writers chose a Middle Eastern people that weren't currently engaged in either conflict or potential conflict with the United States, probably to avoid any associations with real world operations. I don't know, I'm not the writer or producers.
I'm not a racist. A "species-ist", yes, and until human populations stop being able to interbreed, I don't have any problems based on biological constituency.
If you would prefer to discuss this with a neutral moderator and maybe cooperate to figure out what additional information can go into the article, I'm game. I only ask that you be a little more thoughtful before throwing around accusations. Deathbunny 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Insults "R" Us...

Transcripted from Talk:Rules of Engagement (film)


This article seems exclusively focussed on controversy about the film raised by a limited number of viewers and/or reviewers. The article, as it is, seems to be focused on the "offended" side. Deathbunny 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
In some cases, a spade needs to be called a spade. No one will disagree that many of the blaxploitation flicks in the 70s were racist, for example. Nor would they disagree that several films made by US studios in the 30s and 40s reeked of anti-Semitism, overt or otherwise. In light of this, "Rule of Engagement" is racist in its caricatures of Arabs, its implications, etc.. To my knowledge, the movie doesn't contain racist language, but that doesn't give it a free pass. --Kitrus 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it was the director's intent to do so, the movie does serve as an allegory and exploration of the "gray area in military operations that tactical and operational decision-makers face when trying to determine a course of action that complies with regulations, the need to accomplish the mission, a desire to protect fellow military personnel, and the limited information due to the fog of war."
Whether or not it is racist is a different matter. As real world events have shown during blow-up about cartoons of Muhammed and the allegations that many "atrocity photos" taken in Palestine are posed or simulated, the behaviors shown in the movie and ascribed to Muslim peoples of the world are well within the realm of probability and likely similar to personal experiences reported anecdotally in the real world. It portrays Muslims in the film in a way that many people find offensive and definitely does not try to portray a neutral point of view towards Muslims in general, yet this is the way many Muslims actually act and react, if news reports, self-reports by Muslims, and academic research is to be believed.
This fiction's portrayal focuses primarily on the tactical situation that Colonel Childers (and Lieutenant Childers) was placed in and the legal consequences that resulted from the course of action he chose. That's what the movie is about and that's what I think the focus of the article about the movie should reflect in addition to the controversey.Deathbunny 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The faceless dark-skinned masses portrayed in the movie are specifically identified by their nationality, Yemeni, not by thier faith, which you seem to place so much emphasis on.
You have finally shown your true colors in this post. Whether or not you, Deathbunny, have convinced yourself of Muslim "badness" is beside the point. --Kitrus 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Define "badness". Then tell me what and whose scale of moral goodness you are judging it against?
What is your issue? Why do you automatically assume all people follow the behavioral norms you ascribe the qualifier "good" to? What gives you the right to apply those terms to peoples of other culture?
I don't care about what color their skin is or isn't or what religion they are, only what the behavior is and whether it is realistic. And, last I checked, most Yemeni are Muslim and, though rare in Yemen, also participate in violent riots (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-21-yemen-riots_x.htm).
Deathbunny 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You know exactly what I mean. Almost everyone would agree that the way you describe Muslims as typically behaving is despicable.
P.S.:What was your USA Today link supposed to prove? That Yemenis, most of whom are Muslim (why do you keep coming back to this point?), tend to be violent, resolve issues violently, etc.? This is racist thinking, pure and simple. Did you fail to read the article? It states that the riot, which left 16 people dead, was "the country's worst civil strife in more than a decade." So much for those frequent "violent" riots... With 50% of Yemenis living at malnutrional levels under a regime responsible for widespread government corruption and theft, the recent cut to national gas subsidies by 50%(!) were another major slap to the face of Yemenis, with very serious economic consequences. Like so many other people living in 3rd world nations (from Latin America to Africa to Southeast Asia) whose governments accepted offers from the IMF, Yemenis took it to the streets. And, yes, like in so many of those other countries, people were killed in the ensuing protests. ----Kitrus 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't describing the behavior of the Yeminis in the film as despicable or non-despicable. I was stating that the behavior in the fictitious movie is within the realm of possibility for real behavior as seen in the USA Today link. I am not judging Yemeni behavior in the real world or in the movie. I understand that they do not have an easy life. According to the CIA World Factbook, the Median age for Yemenis is 16.6 years, the literacy rate is just above 50%, and the population below the poverty line is 45.2%. That makes for a massive amount of stress on them.
If you want to bring up "Almost everyone would agree that the way you describe Muslims as typically behaving is despicable." I'm going to argue that many Muslims would not find that behavior too despicable and I would thank you to not ignore their feelings on this subject with a blanket (ethnocentric) dismissal.
Your assertion that I was being racist is offensive and I think deserves some form of censure. Your ignorance and inability to consider things rationally while screaming the party line, about a piece of fiction no less, makes for an impression of an extremely shallow and weak-minded individual. Deathbunny 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
My belated reply:
It is unfortunate that you have resorted to name-calling and ad hominem attacks behind a computer screen. It has now been made clear that you have reached the point where you can no longer argue with a cool head. Calling me "ignorant" or "irrational" or "shallow" or "weak-minded" will get you nowhere but banned. Furthermore, as an individual who had a 1.97 GPA (!) in one of the most facile education systems on the planet and a community college graduate, you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence, termite extermination knowledge aside.[1] What you have shown instead, through your outbursts, are possible symptoms of a larger personal problem: a lack of self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, psychological projection, name-your-defense mechanism, etc...
It's no wonder that you've failed to grasp my response to your USA Today link. Slabbing a few Googled statistics together doesn't prove anything.--Kitrus 00:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
My background is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether what I wrote is true or not. Your attitude and what you said, from behind your computer screen, fits what I said. Your accusations of racism and holier-than-thou attitude are irrational and your inability to consider the fact that others have a different take on something you find offensive bely a weakness of mind and an ignorance that I don't care to try and explain to you. Your implied threat that you would or could somehow intimidate me to the point I wouldn't state what I believe is true were we face to face is also indicative of someone who can't argue a point on merits and not resort to violence. I think you really need to take a step back and do some soul-searching before you start whining about someone else's ethics.Deathbunny 03:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"It is unfortunate that you have resorted to name-calling and ad hominem attacks behind a computer screen."
Now that I think about it, that is a terribly ironic statement by you.
Why?
One form of ad hominem attack is the disregarding of one person's idea(s) based on a slight towards them as a person. Such as: "Furthermore, as an individual who had a 1.97 GPA (!) in one of the most facile education systems on the planet and a community college graduate, you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence, termite extermination knowledge aside." and "What you have shown instead, through your outbursts, are possible symptoms of a larger personal problem: a lack of self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, psychological projection, name-your-defense mechanism, etc..."
The closest any of what I wrote approaches a 'personal attack' is "Your assertion that I was being racist is offensive and I think deserves some form of censure. Your ignorance and inability to consider things rationally while screaming the party line, about a piece of fiction no less, makes for an impression of an extremely shallow and weak-minded individual." and was entirely based on your inability to argue the point of the discussion preferring instead to call names and try to pigeonhole what I said into what you might consider "racism". I restricted my observations, both here an in User talk:Deathbunny to what you have said and what you have done without any ascribing of any traits you may or may not have.
You expect "respect and decency", I expect the same and would appreciate if you restrict any further interactions with me to discussions on factual matters regarding specific articles based on their merit and degree of correctness. (This will be repasted into my User talk page for historical reference.) Deathbunny 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article links

Please stop changing wikilinks in firearms-related articles. They should link to what the correspondent articles are actually named, not what you think they should be named. The changes you are making may also result in misslinks if the article does not have a redirect to what you type. If you want to discuss articles names, please do so in their respective talk pages (like you did in the M16 rifle page), although naming conventions for firearm articles have already been discussed, and this is the general consensus reached ("M14 (rifle)", "M16 rifle", etc.). I am reverting your changes to the articles in my watchlist, so please do not change them back before discussing things. —Squalla 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in the process of finding and fixing "misslinks"... Anything that linked to M14 (rifle) (except user/talk pages and a couple archive pages.) were changed to M14 Rifle according to the Special:Whatlinkshere/M14 (rifle) page. I'll take what you said under advisement though. Deathbunny 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Or were you "off" a different page? Deathbunny 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that's what you were doing, so disregard my original comment. Still, you should have discussed those moves before doing so. I have replied to a discussion on the M60 machine gun page here. You may also want to clear things up with WP:MILHIST before you do any more moves. —Squalla 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M1 Garand Page Move

I disagree that it is more correct to refer to the M1 Garand as the M1 Garand Rifle. In fact, do a google search of the phrase "M1 Garand Rifle" and "M1 Garand" and you'll end up with over 10 times the number of hits for the latter. That means that over 5 times as many uses refer to "M1 Garand" rather than "M1 Garand Rifle." Further, you did not place this in the talk page, discuss it, or get a concensus. You also neglected to fix the countless redirects. I'm reverting the move and placing this in the talk page. If you get a concencus, move it.--Asams10 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of you guys seemed to state your piece, decide to disagree, and move on. As long as talking is going on, I'm not moving anything else until it's over. Deathbunny 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, but the conversation HAS been going on and, while it was progressing, you DID move this page. There is no concensus that I can see at all. Which are "You guys" anyway.--Asams10 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone except me, eh? Deathbunny 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firearm article moves

I was was adding a category to a Smith & Wesson article and noticed your move of the 1006 from S&W Model 1006 to Smith & Wesson Model 1006. I see can see your reasoning, but all the "S&W Model" articles are titled S&W, not Smith & Wesson. As was my opinion with the Glock articles, if you're going to change one, you should change them all. But I'll also point out that I think it should stay S&W. I'd suggest putting it back.

I then also noticed your moves based on capitalization such as the M1917 Enfield Rifle. You should read this part of the Style Manual. As that is official policy, I urge you to revert your changes to that and other articles you've changed based on capitalization. I also saw the discussion on the Military History talk page regarding the topic. The way I read it the vote was for the simple version rather than the "A-2" version. As such, I again urge you to correct your caps changes.

Lastly, I noticed out of the corner of my eye the Heckler & Koch HK 53 article. The "HK" is redundant, but I do recognize that the weapon model is HK53. Possibly remove the space?

Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 07:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


I hate to be a pest, but I also noticed the M3 Submachine Gun move. In addition to my caps remarks above, I need to point out that you moved the article but didn't edit it to conform to your move. Specifically, the "Grease Gun" link at the top. Doesn't seem to apply anymore, yeah? Normally I wouldn't have said anything and just fixed it, but I'm seeing a pattern. IMO you should take more caution in your edits/moves. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 08:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now, they're hashing out a new naming convention for US Military weapons with an M# nomenclature. I kinda' got screamed at for pre-emptive moving and so stopped mid-stream on the M3. Once it's done, I intend to go through and fix the links leading to the original page and adjust them. If you like, sound off at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force. As to the HK, I pulled my info off some of the HK Catalogs. If they refer to it without the space, we should, by all means, fix it. As soon as the vote goes, I intend to help fix the links and such to the affected articles I moved a little ahead of the game, eh? Deathbunny 09:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool beans. Sounds like you're on top of it. As to the HK thing, I just saw on HK's website that other models are "HKxx" (no space), so the natural assupmtion is that the 53 is so named as well. Sound right? Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 01:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds right. I mean, it shouldn't surprise me that an HK catalog might be a little off. See the one where the HK USP magazine on the cover had the rounds inserted backwards? Deathbunny 01:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Heckler & Koch HK53 has everything directed at the old page (and redirects) pointed at the new one. Now to do HK33 and the HK21 and maybe onto the others...

The 21 looks ok unless I'm missing something. The 33 will be some work. I went through that with he Glock articles. It was a bear just wrapping my mind around what had to be done.

I can help, but if you're doing it I don't want to waste time editing over each other. I'll wait to see what you do and maybe do something tomorrow (unless you say otherwise). Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 02:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to go for a while and run errands... The cheap and easy way to do this is open the "Whatlinkshere" page. See what (as in redirect) is being used and open the individual pages (one-at-a-time) in a new window. Use windows (Ctrl-F) to search for the short nomenclature... i.e. "HK 21" and step through. When you find it in the editing box, fix either the nomenclature or the link as appropriate. When you're done, save it, check your work for red-links, close the window, and move on. Periodically refresh the "Whatlinkshere" window to see your progress. Works fast... Deathbunny 02:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like those three are "fixed". Kinda' working on the US Weapons stuff and can't bring the HK stuff along for a while. Good luck though. Deathbunny 08:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why to re-name M21 as M21 Sniper Weapon System rather than M21 Sniper Rifle ? How to draw the line between a "Sniper Rifle" and a "Sniper Weapon System" ? Rob1bureau

The most recent field manual (also covering the M24 SWS) lists it as the M21 Sniper Weapon System. Check the reference link on the bottom of M21 Sniper Weapon System page. Deathbunny 13:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: US M# Weapons...

Hopefully, the admin moves will get taken care of once an admin or two drop by the page; I'll try to do some myself, once I have some free time. If nothing else, you can always list them on WP:RM, and somebody will take care of the moves that way.

As far as the to-do list, the talk page seems like a good place; it's likely to be higher-traffic than any special page we create for the purpose. Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:StargateWest.jpg

Hello Deathbunny, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:StargateWest.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Deathbunny/Major General West. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jackrack.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jackrack.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Jackrack.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jackrack.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 that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, 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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Nard 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HiStandard HDMS.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:HiStandard HDMS.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to 1917 Revolver Article

I've made some changes being careful not to delete any prior language. I believe these will enhance the article and invite you to check it out. All changes are sourced. Thanx,--Mcumpston (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)