User talk:Tronno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Categories

Tronno, thanks for the input on categories. I have been currently focused on cleaning up some of the things in Category:Weapons and its subcategories. I have made some mistakes in creating sub-categories that would have too few articles within them to be meaningful, but instead have tried to think of it from a researcher's perspective, to provide a way for them to get to the information in a reasonable way. I am eager to hear of better ways to do this. I would ask for examples of what you find helpful versus what you find to just add to the confusion. As for categories that have too few articles to be useful, I have tried to avoid this by not going to deep in the category description. For example, at some point it may be useful to have a category for British World War I heavy artillery. But if we only have one article on one weapon within it, it probably doesn't make sense. I have made the mistake of creating these categories in the past. Instead, I now try and place weapons in broader categories first, and then if there are a lot of articles within the category, and I can identify a large sub-category that makes sense, I create it and move the relevant articles within it. For example, there are a lot of articles within Category:American weapons and Category:Cold War weapons, so it seemed to make sense to create a sub-category Category:American Cold War weapons. However a Category:Iraqi Cold War weapons didn't because there just wasn't enough to put in there. Since a researcher may be following a number of threads to find weaponry (by nation, by type, by mission, or by conflict/era), I try and follow the 'graph not a tree' philosophy outlined in the categorization guidelines. Again, I am eager to hear what more you might have for input on this matter. By your user page, it looks like you are knowledgeable in military matters, and could be helpful in improving the 'researchability' of the pedia. Thanks,Joshbaumgartner 16:09, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

[edit] 131.94.23.134

Thanks for cleaning up after user:131.94.23.134. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) Double thanks. -Dunkelza 23:10, Apr 26, 2005

[edit] Revert?

The name of the company really IS Texas Equusearch. Really. http://www.texasequusearch.org/ Xaa 02:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Say what? I think you messaged the wrong person. Tronno

Well, then someone else has logged into your account and is making changes in your name. See here Xaa 02:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted after someone posted a picture of autofellatio on the page - the "texas" bit was caught by accident.

'Sokay, I caught that one - check the edit history. =) Glad to see we weren't about to butt heads over one word or something silly. =D Xaa 02:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] End Of Suffering

Hi Tronno. I saw your "minor" edit to the The Four Noble Truths section of the Buddhism article. You added to the third Noble Truth that without desire there would be an end to suffering. I object to that edit because the purpose of the third Noble Truth is to confirm that there is an end to suffering, while the path to Nirvana is told by the fourth Noble Truth. I have reverted your edit. Feel free to comment on this if you wish. Andkaha 06:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Tronno 04:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FN P90, cruft, and policy

I only wish. Articles about gods, mythic figures, models of car, models of firearm, and who knows what all else inevitably end up with a "Popular culture" or "Pop culture" or "Fiction" or whatever header, with an inane list of all the times the subject has appeared in a piece of fiction. Personally, I want to kill all of these headers with fire, but there's a lot of resistance to deleting even inane trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hi. Sorry I forgot to clear the cache before uploading a new version of Image:Bloor-danforth-expansion2.gif (I thought it still has not been corrected). After uploading the image, I noticed your name and cleared my cache, and found that my image is the same as yours.

I'm very sorry for that.—Gniw (Wing) 19:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that's ok. Tronno 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US gunlaws vs. other countries

Is it relevant to write in nearly every gunarticle (like in Franchi SPAS-12) what US gunlaws say about that particular weapon. I can get licence nearly everykind of weapon if I want to (if I had money to buy them), someone in England or Singapore - or New York or California for that matter can't, so US federal gunlaw isn't really the issue in most parts of the world. --81.197.218.62 19:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The US gun market is huge, so when an article references US laws and their effect on the sales of a particular weapon, it shouldn't come as a surprise. If the laws in your home country have some unique relevance to the SPAS, or any other gun, you can always include those too - there's no harm in it. Tronno (talk | contribs) 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think that it should be separate part of the article and not very large part of the overwiew-part. After all, SPAS was made for military or law enforcement use, and only secondary to the US civilian market. --81.197.218.62 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Mini uzi right.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mini uzi right.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check 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. Thank you.

(Note that the web page listed does not supply the actual copyright holder, so the real source is still missing. Stan 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My bad... I usually avoid doing this. I have no other sources for this pic, so feel free to delete. Tronno (talk | contribs) 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Military history: WWII categories

Howdy Tronno.

I see that you've been doing some recategorization. We're currently holding a discussion here on redoing the category tree for World War II. Any input you have is welcome. Oberiko 16:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accurize

Thanks for the kudos, I am quite proud of that article. However, I took a look at it again after you posted to my talk page, and I thought "why don't I have an image or more references?", so I added both. Let me know what you think, and if there are any other areas that could use a bit more work. scot 15:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

See, now you've gone and done it--I looked at your user page and saw Template:Infobox_Firearm is almost entirely yours. I have a rather ambitious project in the works that needs some template help. See User_talk:Fluzwup#Template.2C_take_2 and the following discussion to see what I'm thinking of, and see User:Fluzwup/Ballistics for the current set of raw data (it can be cut and pasted into Excel or the like prett easily). scot 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you unsource my sourced image?

You added an "Unsourced" tag to the image of the Remington 870. This image already had a source tag. What's the issue here?--Asams10 19:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well... there's no source. It has a copyright tag, but the validity of that tag can't be confirmed by others. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just asking you to list the website where you got that image, as per wikipedia policy. Afterwards, you can remove the Unsourced tag, and everything will be peachy. - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And I see you've already removed the Unsourced tag. Please provide a source website or I'll be forced to re-add the tag. - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

BS. It's the work of the US Air Force. Can't be verified by you maybe.--Asams10 19:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, look. This is the official policy on image sources. It clearly states you need to provide some sort of web link to back up the copyright tag ("a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement"). All I'm asking for is a website link. If you can't give me a link for Image:Air Force M870.JPG, just upload a different M870 pic and provide a link for that. It's very simple.

Also, I get the impression that you consider this a personal attack. Please don't. :( - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a work of the Air Force. You took that quote out of context. That's for referencing pictures posted on Wikipedia when used on another web site. I suggest that you reread your own link carefully and reconsider. You're mistaken. You're misinterpreting the rules and then applying your misinterpretation by trying to have the picture removed.--Asams10 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, that was a terrible choice for a quote. Here's a better one, from the Upload File page:

Your file will be deleted in one week unless you provide detailed information on both:

1. The source of the file:

If you made it yourself, say so.
If the file is available online, include a link.

2. The copyright holder and the license of the file, including:

You provided #2, but not #1. You think I'm wrong to ask for a link - I will seriously consider this claim. I will contact an administrator to clarify the rules for my own benefit. If the admin agrees with your point of view, you won't hear from me again. However, I doubt this will happen. Please just post a link. It's not that hard. - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stoner 63 - new infobox

Thanks for cleaning up after me, I was unacceptably sloppy in my edit :-) I'm changing many pages to use the new weapon infobox (I'll put a list of the pages on my own user page soon), but it's about a 100 in 2 days. Deon Steyn 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sniper rifle

Hi, it is obvious that you are 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#Capabilities Section Discussion and Talk:Sniper rifle#Intro. Thanks. Deon Steyn 16:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XM148

Okay, I get that the box may be out-of-date.

I would like to ask you your information source as to the "wrong info". Deathbunny 03:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Caught where I had neglected to rename the Box's name when I added data for XM148. I applied Template:Infobox Weapon. If you do have additional sources and/or a picture, that would be helpful. Deathbunny 04:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I just saw the "M203" title and figured you just copied and pasted the box from that article. My bad. :) - Tronno ( t | c ) 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I like sourced info from real/decent sources so usually I'm good. Occasionally, however, I do a no-brainer. Thanks for catching the screw up.Deathbunny 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use gun images

Greetings. You have uploaded many great images to Wikipedia, and I thank you. Unfortunately, some of the "fair use" images are against policy. Recently, Jimbo clarified that we can't use a non-free image of an item, even under a fair-use rationale, if it would be possible to "recreate" the image (take a new photo of the item) and release it under a free license. As such, I've tagged a number of the images you uploaded (such as Image:Supressed-Usp45.jpg) as being "repeatable", and subject to deletion.

I mean no disrespect, and I thank you for all the free images you've uploaded. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for letting me know. - Tronno ( t | c ) 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Spas12b.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Spas12b.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded it with source information, but due to vandalism it was deleted around September. Of course, I'm replying to a bot... - Tronno ( t | c ) 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut paste move on M134 minigun

Hello, Tronno. It appears that you copied and pasted M134 minigun to Minigun. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you, Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks champ, but that edit was made over a year ago. I've had plenty of time to learn my lesson. - Tronno ( t | c ) 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit history still needs to be fixed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FN F2000

Hey buddy. May I ask why you removed the contribution I made to the FN F2000 article. The Wikiproject Firearms clearly states that you can only add popcultre refrence if it is big like James Bond and the PPK. Thought I sould point it out. - RedNeckIQ55

James Bond is a 50-year-old franchise that spawned more than 20 movies, countless spin-offs and merchandise. Splinter Cell is just a series of action games. It's nowhere near as culturally influential as James Bond, and it's completely irrelevant in the scope of a serious firearm article. Please don't take my revert as a personal attack - if you look in the edit history of the F2000 article, you'll see that other people have also been editing in references to Splinter Cell on a constant basis, and they've been reverted every time. Same thing with FN P90 and Stargate references. It's just against policy. - Tronno ( t | c ) 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Firearms

Hello Tronno, would you by chance be interested in joing the WikiProject Firearms? We need more people to join and since you're interested in firearms I thought you might like to join.--LWF 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know how much I'll be able to contribute, but it sounds fun. - Tronno ( t | c ) 02:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the project.--LWF 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] billions and billions

From a edit of Eros, I suspect you have never heard of the Long and short scales controversy.

I wish I had never heard of it, either. --68.0.120.35 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Firearms userbox

A discussion on the WikiProject Firearms userbox is currently underway on the project talk page. Samples of various proposed userboxes can be found here and here. As a member, your input is valuable and appreciated. If you would like to contribute to the discussion or vote on your favorite, please visit the Userbox section of the talk page. Thanks! —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] picantinny aresnal page

why did you delete the parts i added about them inventing the armed robots and recently errecting a huge tower on the nearby mountain? there was no reason giving in the edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.187.30.16 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Because of the "now-famous armed warbots" bit. Sounds like vandalism to me. Cite your sources next time. - Tronno ( t | c ) 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nazarian site

Hi. What is your opinion of the nazarian site? Are its entries worth inclusion on Wiki; do you still hold the same view you did 2 years ago? Thx. El_C 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey. After a quick look through their site, I can see the situation hasn't really changed. Most of their stuff is either copied from worldguns.ru or from here. Nazarian's does host some videos and pdf manuals that might be hard to find elsewhere, but unfortunately their other articles don't add any new information. Personally I don't care if nazarian's links are deleted or left in - the only reason I messaged the user above is because at the time, he was spamming those links for no apparent reason. - Tronno ( t | c ) 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't sure who was plagiarizing whom, but in light of your 2005-comment, I suspected it was them. With respect to that user, see also User talk:83.108.205.106 for other similar spamming attempts. Yes, its entries do not look impressive, and, since you say there hasn't been much improvement, I'm inclined to remove links to its articles, though I'll leave the pdf manuals and mpgs. Thx again. El_C 09:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Drive for the Firearms Wikiproject

Hello Tronno. The Firearms Wikiproject is having an infobox drive. The purpose of this is to ensure that most (if not all) of the articles within our scope have the relevant infoboxes. The start date will be May 28^th. If you choose to participate, go to our project page and pick an article under the To-do list's Infobox section or look for firearm articles that need an infobox. Before you start editing an article, please cross it out on the list so that we don't have editor's work clashing. The drive will last for five days. If you are interested, please RSVP to LWF. Thank you, the Firearms Wikiproject. --Seed 2.0 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Phf_gerald_ug.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Phf_gerald_ug.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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. Rette tast 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CarlosHathcock_color.jpg

I have tagged Image:CarlosHathcock_color.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rette tast 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Navy Field

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Navy Field, by DarkSaber2k (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Navy Field is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Navy Field, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Navy Field itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M-1 Carbine Article

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look?Sf46 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)