User talk:Thernlund/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome back :)

Hey Thernlund,

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to say hi and it's good to have you back. :)

I also just noticed that you've been using AWB to clean up a lot of gun-related articles (just had my watchlist light up this fine morning like a Christmas tree ;). I don't know if you know this but AWB is not supposed to be used for minor cosmetic edits that don't really change the layout if that's the only change (like removing or adding a whiteline, eg. [1] [2] [3] [4]). Just thought I'd let you know in case you didn't. Cheers S up? 10:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think I remember that. Thanks for the heads up and the welcome back. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 10:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Anytime. :) S up? 11:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't fully comprehend what you meant I think. I disagree. AWB is for these sort of things which make the article visually easier to edit as well as trim bytes off the article size. I am marking my AWB edit minor now though so you can hide them if they're mucking you up. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 03:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BarnStar!

The Working Man's Barnstar
Awarded For Cleaning Up Gun related articles JWJW Talk Long Live Esperanza! :)/Stronger Faster Better. 11:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note(I know you were using AWB, but still, these tasks are tedious, but most be done and i hope you are still happy to receive it.)--JWJW Talk Long Live Esperanza! :)/Stronger Faster Better. 11:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 09:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state)

Great edit on the Michigan section! Nburden 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(untitled comment)

Note to Sa 58 article - CZH 2003 really has lower quality than CZ 858 or FSN01 - some of CZH rifles (not all, e.g. mine works 100% :-) don't work reliably - it's called "Hermex efect", it has been reported by many shooters. I personally have seen many CZH and CZ 858 rifles - all CZH looked as assembled from used parts (although the producer declares all parts are unused), all CZ 858 looked as new weapons (new varnish etc.). CZH has block restricting use of Sa 58 full-auto bolt carrier and hammer ugly welded into the rifle frame, CZ 858 and FSN01 don't have it. I guess it's because CZH was first semi-auto variant of originally full-auto assault rifle approved by Czech Proof House for Firearm and Amunition for civilian market and had to brake psychology barrier of officials. After first precedent later coming successors were approved although they are easily convertable back to full-auto (this is the thing the Czech goverment is most affraid of). I'm not sure if this information (CZH 2003 has lower quality, rather buy CZ 858 or FSN01) is "encyclopedic" and may/should be mentioned, anyway IMHO it's fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.42.207.18 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 August 2007.

In your opinion it's a fact? Heh. Unless you have a source, commentary on the weapons quality will be removed. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pribor 3B

Why did you revert all of the removals of Pribor 3B from articles it had absolutely nothing to do with? It doesn't matter if the AfD isn't over, what the heck does the Pribor have to do with an RPK? Nothing. So no need to keep it under a "See also" section. I'll be re-removing them shortly. Parsecboy 09:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed them under the pretext that it was a fictional weapon. Not appropriate considering there was a discussion about that in progess. Do it again and I'll revert you again. If the Pribor truely has no reason to be a See also, then fine. You go ahead and I'll check up on you later. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 10:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've only removed the ones that are unrelated at all; I've left the links in "List of..." type articles, or where it might be related, like with Nordenfelt Gun. Check up on me all you want. Parsecboy 10:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In reference to the comments to made on Asams10's talk page, yes, of course I'm aware of bullpup weapons. No, I am not an idiot. The problem I have with the Pribor is that there's only the very tiny buttstock behind the magazine, which leaves more or less no room for a normal bolt to operate. And yes, I'm well aware of how the P90 operates; one of my buddies has one. There's no need to be snotty. Parsecboy 11:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Moot now, isn't it? —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Max Popenker's email. No hard feelings? Parsecboy 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I'm easy. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss the so called 'Pribor-3B' at the German A. Korobov talk page.

User:Winky Bill 20:28PM, 31/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winky Bill (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AHSA

I wish you would not revert my edits as I am trying to make their listing more fair and balanced and less tilted to OTHER INTERESTS' favor. I hope you will respect my edits and desist in your attempts. Wiki has already created a ticket # on this page due to the number of attempts by organization unfriendly to AHSA to discredit them on this platform. Sickoflies —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:15, August 27, 2007 (UTC).

My revert was not due to any political agenda. It was due to the fact that the newly added content was directly copied from the AHSA's website. That is infringement and it is not allowed. By all means, improve the article. But do so with original content and cite references for your additions when appropriate. If more content is copied and pasted, I will revert it. Thanks. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi police and Glock 19

Hello , you are correct regarding the Glock 19 and its world wide use , but im saying regarding the conflict in iraq its important to mention that its been used by iraqi forces ...--Jonybond 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you're refering to. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 03:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you mentioned to Alan Dutch ( user ) not to include iraqi police in the users so i found it important to mention it .--Jonybond 03:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, use by the Iraqi police has no impact on the noteriety of the weapon. The G19 is still just the G19. Mention of it in the Iraqi Police article is good. But not the other way around. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Category:Firearms articles needing an image ...

You duplicated effort: See Category:Gun articles needing image....

These should probably be merged (I don't really care which direction). Georgewilliamherbert 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I know. That's the plan. Time consuming though. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 03:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

KAC SR-47

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of KAC SR-47, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: SR-47. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That it was. The KAC article has all it's content on it's talk page, so I moved it to the article page. Then this. Soooo... I redirected. Thanks bot. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 06:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

So who's the machine now? ;-) Have you categorized every firearms article yet? lol. Arthurrh 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

HA! I'm working on it.  :-D But I try to do it late at night because it blows up peoples watchlists. Pain in the ass if they're in the process of article patroling. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, it messsed me up bad. I find myself cursing your name and wishing you had marked them as "minor". Heh. Arthurrh 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh man. I knew I forgot something. I'll do that in the future. Sorry. <turns red> —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Walther P22

The conensus was reached in the archived Talk page. Shortly after the Virginia Tech Massacre, there was a big debate on this page about whether to include mention of the massacre at this article. You can read about it in this article's discussion page archive. The debate boiled down to these opposing viewpoint:

  • Articles about the guns used in the Columbine shooting and the guns used to kill JFK and President McKinley mention those people's deaths. Why not mention it here?
  • The gun itself had nothing to do with the VT Massacre -- it just happened to be the tool the shooter used. Therefore, the gun shouldn't be mentioned in this article.

I, personally, thought that the Walther deserved mentioning here because it was used in the deadlist shooting in United States history, but I was convinced by argument not to include it. These arguments, led by Yaf (whom I respect very much) said that it should be mentioned only if some kind of gun legislation or other change results from the VT massacre. Yaf wrote, "The Columbine Massacre led to directly banning the Tec-9, by name, in the Assault Weapons Ban, and the weapon received considerable media and legislative attention as a result of Columbine... As the P22 has not received any notable media attention yet, nor legislative attention by Congress, the consensus reached in the discussion of the Beretta CX4 Storm should apply here. Namely, if the P22 receives considerable media attention as a result of the VT shootings, then mention of the shootings in the P22 article should be added in a few months." What did receive media attention is that the VT shooter purchased ammunition for is P22 from eBay, and as a result, eBay stopped selling ammunition. By Yaf's criteria, and the criteria agreed to in the conensus on the Talk archive page, eBay's banning of ammo sales belongs in this article because it occurrec as a direct result of the use of the P22 in the VT Tech massacre. This compromise was reached earlier, and I think we should abide by it. Griot 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Magazines for the P22 were purchased. Not ammo. But I digress. Did you actually read what Yaf said?
"The Columbine Massacre led to directly banning the Tec-9, by name, in the Assault Weapons Ban, and the weapon received considerable media and legislative attention as a result of Columbine... As the P22 has not received any notable media attention yet, nor legislative attention by Congress, the consensus reached in the discussion of the Beretta CX4 Storm should apply here. Namely, if the P22 receives considerable media attention as a result of the VT shootings, then mention of the shootings in the P22 article should be added in a few months."
The Walther P22 has not received any considerable media attention. The P22 naturally got a few mentions just as a matter of course. But the main media focus was on the fact the Cho bought mags from eBay. I never saw any media outlet ramble on about the P22 and how THIS WEAPON was special, or how THIS WEAPON facilitated Cho. As well, eBay's press release announcing the firearms ban didn't make mention of the P22 by name. In fact, didn't make mention of a firearm at all in relation to VT. Not even a specific firearm part!! Just "...some items purchased on eBay...".
I read the whole discussion. It was split. No concensus. For a concensus you need to (sort of) have a majority feeling one way or the other. There was none.
What exactly is the malfunction here? Virgina Tech is not notable for this model of gun. It's not special. It's just another gun. If this was a Ruger MK II or a Browning buckmark you'd all be thumping your chests over those articles. Model is not special. If it really is, then maybe some other things are special too. Maybe VT and Cho need to be mentioned in .22 Long Rifle, Magazine (firearms), 9mm Luger Parabellum, Hollow-point bullet, Virginia, South Korea, ect. You better get to work. Hmph. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.