User talk:Ve3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Contents

[edit] Assault rifle

I'm reverting your revert. See talk page. Friday 9 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

  • It was not just a revert (I did add a little)- More importantly, we can work together on this to achieve a good solution. Ve3 9 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

Agreed. I see now it wasn't just a revert, sorry about that. I should have paid more attention. There are still some things I think need fixed, but I'll discuss on the talk page. Friday 9 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Oh I did not mean that it was big deal, you dont really have to apologize. I look forward to your ideas though! Ve3 9 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

[edit] Template change

How about leaving a note on the talk page before you remove stuff from templates like Weapon-firearm? Surgo 04:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yea sure I would be happy comment on changes to stuff, like on templates such as weapon-firearm. Ve3 18:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle

Outstanding edit on the Humvee article. You should be proud of that piece. Fernando Rizo 17:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Ve3

[edit] M4 article

Nice additions to the M4 Carbine article. Do you have a link for the "lessons learned" section? You should probably include it as a reference, especially since I'd be interested in reading any more detail the report might have. Chuck 22:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks chuck. Good suggestion-I added some more reference information for Natick, but there is not a proper link that I know of, just some scattered websites of varying hosting quality that turn up in google (such as here [1]). Ve3 06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] List of modern AFV and artillery related terms and acronyms

Hi Ve3,

I found this page this morning and it looked interesting, so I Wikied in some links. The problem is that the list appears to be identical to the Reference quoted (and the reference has a copyright notice). If it is a copy, then it is a breach of their copyright and it should not be on Wiki; however it might be possible to remove the list completely from the Wiki page but leave the (http://www) link at the bottom and add a note "go to this web site to see the list" - that would not breach their copyright. The same applies to the other list given at the top of the page. See ((Copyright)) for more Info.

Sorry. Pyrotec 21:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You can't copyright a list of military acronyms any more than you could a list of country or computer acronyms. If that was possible than a great many lists on wikipedia would be commiting a copyright breach, because they are the same as elsewhere. If they were definitions, or had explanations, that that would be different. As it is, its just the words in common acronyms. Ve3 03:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .30-06 Springfield

  • Whistles*. Wow, that was a great addition! Thank you so much for adding the things about such a great gun with a fascinating history. I stand with the other users here in thanking you for adding good content to good articles. Thank you! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 06:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, and thank you too- Its fun to work on the many interesting articles here with other good people working on them. Ve3 23:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FN P90

Please, please, don't make a list of all of the P90's appearances in fiction. Such a list can never be complete, serves little purpose, and is contrary to Wikipedia's mission (per Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate trivia). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, its not limited to fiction. Second, it already is partially complete, just like just about every other wikipedia page. Thirdly, whether it be trivia or not, its information anyone with a serious interest in the firearm will want to know. Blocking people's access to this information is not a service to them.Ve3 02:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It's trivia, just a list of appearances, without any analysis or insight other than "This is a prop in this, this, and that piece of fiction." On top of this, it's a bad precendent; think of how broad and useless similar lists about the M1911, the Colt Single Action Army, the M16, the AK47, the Uzi and it's variants, the Winchester repeating rifle, or the MAC-10 would be. It's fanpage material, not encyclopedia material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
In time further analysis could be added, but that is not a prerequiste for a list anyway. As for if it is a precendent or not, well each case can be evaluated on its own. Appearances in pop culture can be as important an aspect of a firearm's existance and is a important area to inform a reader of. Ve3 02:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The FN P90 already described its role in fiction, as a futuristic-looking prop. I don't see how this list (or any possible analysis, which could go in the FN P90 article anyway) serves any purpose that that doesn't.
Additionally, no, the AFD tag doesn't have to be discussed first. I went to you first as a courtesy, to make my case for you before I listed the page on AFD, but the AFD tag is the beginning of a discussion, not the product of one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is your not following the guidlines for placing a AFD, at worst the page is a case for merge anyway. That aside, as matter of courtesy its better to resolve this by actually having a discussion. This is important since you don't seem to grasp the the P90 is not like other firearms in this area, and that noting appearances in film is already in firearm articles. Ve3 02:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Really, I'm aware of how the P90 is used in film, and you haven't yet made any case that it's different from other firearms that have been featured in fiction. (Remember, please, I was the one who mostly wrote FN P90#Popular culture in its current form; I know it's often used as a futuristic-looking weapon in near-future sci-fi.
As for the AFD, I feel this article should be deleted; I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, as long as we didn't end up with another bulleted list of all the P90's appearances in fiction. In any event, please don't remove the AFD tag, as I do indeed feel the article should be deleted, and AFD tags placed in good faith should not be removed.
I feel it's much more useful and encyclopedic to explain how a firearm is used as a prop or how it has become symbolic or iconic than to simply list its appearances (many of which will be incidental or unrelated to its iconic rule, and at least some of which will be as a filler prop). To use a much simpler case as an analogy, rather than have a list of westerns in which the SAA has appeared, I'd rather have an overview of how the Peacemaker has an iconic role in spaghetti westerns and pulp Wild West fiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the AFD tag twice because there was no AFD page for it. As for the page information- yes a merge would likely have been fine-I think you were far to hasty to afd it. Neverthelss, users deserce access to the notable appearances, especially for the few firearms that achieve this status. You may think making a general note of it use is fine, but its going to be wholly inadequate in the long run for people interested in learning about the firearm on the wikipedia. Ve3 03:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, okay, the AFD mess is just a misunderstanding. I had made an AFD page, but because of the mid-process move of the page, it ended up at the wrong title. No big deal, there.
I wouldn't object to unusual or iconic roles described in the FN P90 article, but right now it's just a list of random appearances. Counterstrike and Front Mission, for example, have dozens upon dozens of guns, most of which see little use even in the context of the games. I tried to pick a handful of illustrative examples, but I see litle use in an exhaustive list, complete or otherwise.
If you want to add an analysis of its use in fiction to FN P90, I have on objection, and I'll help when I can. (Just make sure it's not original research, anyway.) I don't see any value or use in an exhaustive list of its appearances as a prop, whether or not it is an incidental or symbolic/iconic use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok what if we make a hybrid: a very compact but comphrensive list on the P90 page (not bulleted) but with selected 'symbolic' examples for greater detail. I don't really care about the explanation, its more just having a single link that connects the two items (e.g. film and P90) that is usefull. Ve3 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
That's roughly what I was trying to do in the first place, when I replaced the bulleted list with the current paragraphs. If you think you can do a better job (and I'm fairly sure you can, looking at your past contribs), by all means, replace my effort, but I just don't want to see it swell into a list of "This gun was a prop in A, B, C, D..." again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I wish we had got to this point sooner!- the AFD is going to have to run its course now either way. I will see what I can think up for the listing though. Ve3 03:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Eh. The only delete votes are my own and a delete vote per my reasoning (which is no longer applicable), so I'll close it as withdrawn. No big deal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to redirect List of appearances of the FN P90 in media to FN P90 for the time being; a quick link to the last version pre-redirect (for merging purposes) is here. IF you want to take a whack at FN P90, I'll do my best to help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok sounds good- Keep in mind what I said before though " a very compact but comphrensive list on the P90 page (not bulleted) ". I think we will get something that works though, as there are a lot of options for keeping it tidy but informative. Ve3 03:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, what do you mean by comprehensive? I don't see what purpose a list of all the appearances serves, but I do see the value of examples to illustrate trends. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Lets just wait and see how the hybrid version turns out, and discuss it then. Im busy with other things for time being. Ve3 04:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Mmkay. For future discussion on this subject, let's use Talk:FN P90. I've tried to polish the prose a little, in the meantime. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just wanted to chime in. It seems to me that whatever the outcome of this discussion will be, somebody should move to make it official Wikipedia policy. An official policy on cruft would help prevent similar arguments (revert wars!) from erupting over other articles, be they firearm related or not. Cheers! Tronno 21:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M1 Carbine

About using SI or Imperial measures in firearms, would you please direct me to the Wikipedia page where it is specified that US weapons should display the Imperial measures/masses first?
Most firearm articles I have read (including US weapon) show the SI measures first, and since this is the most used system worldwide, I believe it should be the standard.
Also, I've cited the source (world.gun.ru — please have a look) from where I got the 200 m effective range, while you haven't provided me one. I'm aware that there are numerous variables for ranges, so if you'd please provide a source for the effective range of the M1 Carbine, we should be able to come to an agreement.
One last thing, I was the one who added Brazil to "Operators" — there's a special operations police battalion in Rio de Janeiro (named BOPE - Batalhão de Operações Especiais) which still employs the .30 Carbines. I don't know if the "Operators" section is restricted to major forces only, and if that's the case, I'll refrain from adding it to the table again. Please let me know.
Thanks in advance. Squalla 19:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no real formal standard either way, and though US articles, especially older firearms, tend towards english units. There is semi-standard of catering a article towards the country its for (e.g. british spellings on british guns), which can carry over to which unit to use or go first. While metric is more popular internationally, among native english speakers a majority still use enlish due to the large portion of english speakers being US. However, Im not really that particular which comes first, and actually slightly favor having metric first for modern (e.g. after NATO integration) US weps. In this case it can probably go either way, I had changed it since it was primarily a US weapon and before the military went SI, but if you can change it back I guess.
The 300 yard range can be found in many sources (other websites and books), as it is the range the weapon was designed for. There is some disagreement over its effective range- whether it's actually good up to 300 yards, but these very and are subjective.
As for BOPE- that is certainly a notable use and I will add it back in, and some others too. Ve3

[edit] M1911

Just wanted to stop by and say awesome job rewriting the M1911 Article, it looks and reads great. BTW I added the weapons-firearm template to the page. - Kaiserb 20:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey thanks!, nice job on the new table too. Ve3 21:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M60 machine gun

Just thought it would be at least respectable of you to include the numerous spelling/grammar/clarity corrections I have to make in the article everytime you revert my edits. Just as you spent time to do that summary and add dates and more dates to the article, I spent time to make the article more pleasant to read by formatting, correcting spelling and rewriting sentences for clarity's sake.

As for the summary, I still think it's unnecessary — otherwise, every other article would have a "summary" of every section bigger than 2 sentences. To make things easier, the brief description of the summary could be added as the first sentence of each variant subsection (if not already done), and then the full explanation would follow. The summary just makes the whole article look longer without adding information to it (note that it is already longer than the ideal according to Wikipedia standards), making the full explanations seem ignorable. --Squalla 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for changing back some of your other spelling/grammar/etc changes for the times that happened, as I meant to include those. For most of those I did manage to include them, as I was not using old versions. I agree that the article is getting rather long, and the usefullness of the section is debatable. That said, I think it is worth keeping there (maybe trimmed down further) so people who don't know anything about M60 version will know which versions they want to look at, without actually having to look through the longer sections- something more usefull then a index, but not as cluttered as written introduction. The article is indeed long, and some of the variants probaly deserve their own page at some point- though its not as long as, say the m16 page. Ve3 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were going to include my edits back into the article...? --Squalla 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought I got them all? I will go check again...Ve3 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok there was only once that I saved the wrong version, and I think I got all of the smaller corrections from that now. There were a couple I missed on the first check that are now also included. Ve3 02:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M16s in video games

I don't see how it's going to be practical to have a seperate list for every M16 variant used in games. See Talk:M4 Carbine in popular culture where I've attempted to explain my reasoning. Friday (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I put these up for Afd (both on the same one). Whether it's deleted or not, maybe people will give opinions on whether or not to have more than one list like this. Friday (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M16 rifle not a Primary Topic

There was consensus that M16 rifle is the proper name for the page. It has been flagged a good article. You moved M16 to M16 (disambig), not a proper name. For a Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary Topic, "Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page." A Generic Topic page is there to make it easy to find all the incorrect links and disambiguate them. These pages will be repaired (the second time). Please respect the consensus.

--William Allen Simpson 16:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
G'day mate. I had to reverse your move of M16 to M16 (disambig) - there wasn't consensus (and that is the incorrect name anyway). The only way to get this move will be to file a Requested moves application - which will allow a discussion to occur. Don't move it again, ever. An admin will take care of it if the requested move bid is successful.--Commander Keane 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
There was never a consensus on the disambiguation page, just the rifle page. It is by far the most common use of M16 and should redirect there like other cases. If you want to change it back, then the discussion is for the reverse. I'm moving it back until such a conseus is actually reached for that page. Ve3 19:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The M16 rifle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) page started life at the M16 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) page. That's why the naming history moved to Talk:M16 rifle along with the content. You just did a copy and paste move from M16 to M16 (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and redirected M16 to M16 rifle. This was your 4th egregious attempt to bypass the clear consensus.

  • This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
--William Allen Simpson 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You certianly know how trump up charges- The orginal debate did not have to do with if was a primary topic, it was over the correct page name-not if m16 should redirect to it. Furthermore, never once did I vandalize the page. Finally, I would have been happy to talk about the changes- but I see you must resort to severe threats to get your way. I obviously concede the matter, but not without great contempt your behavior and disrespect for you as a person. Ve3 21:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I'm sorry for the way I treated to you Ve3, it wasn't cool. I saw your move to M16 (disambig) and thought you were just disrupting. I was wrong, you always acted with common sense and in good faith. I have filed a requested move to get M16 moved to M16 (disambiguation) so M16 can redirect to M16 rifle - there is discussion about this at Talk:M16. You never vandalised, ignore that rubbish above. If you ever need anything give me a shout at my talk page. All the best, --Commander Keane 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, I was refering to WAS above not you. Thank you for your understanding the matter and also setting up the survey. Ve3 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9 mm Luger Parabellum ? ? Why?

Why did you move the properly titled 9 mm Luger to the improperly titled article 9 mm Luger Parabellum. It's either the more correct 9 mm Luger or the more common 9 mm Parabellum, not both combined on a whim. Am I wrong about this? What's your source? --Asams10 22:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

DWM named the round Parabellum, not Luger. Ve3 22:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd go for "9 mm Parabellum" with a "9 mm Luger" redirect to "9 mm Parabellum." Logic is that it is originally an European cartridge. "9 mm Luger" is an Ami-centric name, rather like calling the 7.92 x 57 rifle cartridge: "8 mm Mauser". --86.135.12.79 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bayonets by country

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. Sandstein 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not a copyright violation- any list of bayonets by country will contain the same material. The bayonets used by those countries cannot be changed to not contain the same information and be accurate. It would be like saying a list of US presidents is a copyvio of a list of US presidents. 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The information itself is certainly not copyrighted. But the way it is presented is. It appears that you just copy-pasted the entirety of this list, or an older version of it, with very minor modifications, retaining not only the model names alone but also even editorial comments of the author like "unknown designation converted Belgian", "replica Machete MkI fake commando knife", "large number of conversions to German Ersatz, and other blades to 35 export pattern". This list incorporates more research, assertions and thought than just a list of US presidents. it is almost certainly copyrighted, and copy-pasting it is copyvio.
I am not trying to dissuade you from using this information or writing an article about a list of bayonets. I suggest you follow the instruction on the copyvio notice, and create a temp subpage in which you adapt the information in an original, non-infringing manner. You should cite the list as a source and format it as per the {{wikify}} template, while you're at it. Best, Sandstein 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with your assessment, but we can make a version more to your liking. I will put back a modified version, without the sections you view as offending US copyright law. Ve3 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The list shown is actualy only a partial list of over 3500 bayonets that i know of, and consists on;y of my own personal collection list and is some years old now. I have added a few more, but will look to copy over a fuller list sometime. Oldsmithy (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)oldsmithy

[edit] MK23 Mod 0

I noticed you just started moving and redirecting pages related to the MK23. However, the correct name of this gun is not "Mark 23 Mod 0", it's "MK23 Mod 0". Therefore, I'd like to request that we change the article name to "Heckler & Koch MK23 Mod 0" to keep the usual firearm article format. What say you? - Tronno ( t | c ) 06:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The usual article format for US firearms is not to include the manufacture name, when it has a type classification- even when it also offered as commercial product. Spelling out 'Mark' is a correct way (as is the abrev.) of writing US Navy type classifications. Ve3 06:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Navy may consider both versions correct, but H&K seems to make a distinction between the SOCOM version (MK23) and the civilian version (Mark 23). They do this in their articles and in the engraved markings on the gun itself. It's worth noting, and it's why I think we should stick to the MK23 name. - Tronno ( t | c ) 06:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if its at "Mark 23 Mod 0" or "Mk 23 Mod 0", I already said both are correct- but it should not be preceded by H&K. Ve3 06:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. "MK23 Mod 0" it is then? Just say yes, and I'll also start helping you with all those double redirects. - Tronno ( t | c ) 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MK 23 Mod 0 or Mk 23 Mod 0? Ve3 06:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MK23 Mod 0 <- just like that. Also, can you tell me why you're reverting my cleanup edits? You're duplicating info that's already present in other parts of the article. - Tronno ( t | c ) 07:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok thats fine, go for it. We can work out the page content later (the dup'ed stuff). Ve3 07:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Super cool, man. I'll get on it in a few hours. - Tronno ( t | c ) 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitrailleuse

Will you please stop editing the mitrailleuse page with incorrect information. You keep shoving things in which are not true and should not be in the article. The mitrailleuse's poor performance did not put Europeans off machine guns "for decades". Where are you getting information like this from? Rusty2005 17:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong- but this conversation is taking place on the article's talk page and I will respond to it there. Ve3 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not wrong. I am studying the Franco-Prussian War for my finals andhave recently finished a dissertation on French military technology in the nineteenth century. Believe me, the information which you are putting in is wrong. Where are you getting this stuff from anyway? Which books or articles are you using? Rusty2005 17:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
For the last time, I am replying on the article page. Any further comments will be moved there. Ve3 17:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

I don't want to turn this into a personal thing, but it looks like that's what you're doing, so here we go.

First of all, your edits tend to add information that is already contained within other parts of the article, making them much longer than they have to be, without adding to them at all. When someone goes ahead and cleans it up, you simply add it back without saying why, and when questioned about it, you either claim that the information is not duplicate, or that you added it as a summary or introduction. Well, that's not how the layout works, and that's according to the Wikipedia style guide itself. Please take the time to read it and see it yourself. This may be a "free encyclopedia", but there are styles to follow.

Also, please stop linking articles that don't exist in sentences such as "See also: This article does not exist". This causes excessive redlinking and is misleading. Additionally, a big share of the links you're adding are very unlikely to become articles, such as "The etymology of machine gun". The etymology of these words are supposed to be in their respective articles. Regarding the cleanup tag in the MK23 Mod 0 article, it is not cleaned-up yet, and I'll add it back — there is still rewriting and removal of redundant info to do.

All I'm asking you is to improve the quality of your edits, and respect other people's edits, especially when these people are basing their edits on style guides set by Wikipedia itself. —Squalla 20:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no bone with you Squalla, and I have alwasy thought highly of your formating work. That said, I don't agree with your most what you have to say there nor your interpretations of things. Ve3 21:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Friendly request: do you mind making one single edit with all of your changes as opposed to one edit per character added? This would make my life a hell of a lot easier. —Squalla 16:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can try and cut down on it. Normally I do fewer, but I have had some connection errors recently. Keep in mind you can still look at all the edits at once, with history section (as your probably know, but just to be sure). Ve3 21:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German WWII Infantry Weapons

I started a discussion under that article. Since it was your addition of the CZ vz.24 that precipitated this discussion, I would ask you to join it. Thanks.--Asams10 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, no problem; I have joined the discussion there. Ve3 00:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of modern infantry related terms and acronyms

It's copied verbatim from the site under == References ==, so I put the page up under copyright violations. J. Finkelstein 03:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been covered before, its not a copyvio. A list of acronyms on this subject cannot be any different then what it is, like a list of US states. If these were unique, or they were definitions they created then it would be a different situation. Ve3 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll buy that. Sorry for any inconvenience :). J. Finkelstein 03:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey no problem at all, copyvio is a serious issue. Good luck with your edits. Ve3 22:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ve3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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!  --AirforceguyScramble! 01:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:M9pistolcloseup.jpg

Can you write the URL of the page?--Sanandros 21:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Ve3 21:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Resource you may not have...

Hey! Check this out: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=710 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=711 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=712 From: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usamhi/DL/ Considering we're chasing each other around these old guns, this might be useful to you.
Thx--Sanandros 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, those are some great links. Ve3 17:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KuK on Bundeswehr article

When I read this talk-page I find a lot of comments reminding you to be more careful with edits and reverts. You do not seem to have any respect to the work of other users. Your behaviour is close to vandalism. You will be closely observed.--KuK 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have utomost respect for others, and have done nothing close to vandalism. You own edits on the Bund article are also questionable-such as deleting external links and sections. I am always open to compromise, which has been the result of nearly all my disputes. Even before you posted this, I already returned a section you pointed out. Ve3 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
As you can see I am presently working on the article. Yesterday I did not interfere with your work, so I would like you to stay away from it now until I am finished!--KuK 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Very well then, I will do the same. Ve3 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:M60andsoldierwithammoinnam.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:M60andsoldierwithammoinnam.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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 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 Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Its from the U.S. federal government, taken on, and in the situation listed. Ve3 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:M60andsoldierwithammoinnam.jpg

Are you sure that's a real authentic picture? Because the guy in it looks like Dylan McDermott.--KrossTalk 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Ve3 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Us m60e2 01.jpg

Do you have any sources of this picture?--Sanandros 09:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The source is already listed. Ve3 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M16 rifle

I'm fed up with your attitude towards other user's edits. You don't seem to have any respect for other people's edits unless they comply with your own ideas. Wikipedia does have rules and guidelines, and apparently you don't give a rat's ass about any of them.

I suggest we take a look at our edits, and try to draw some conclusions. Let's see:

  • My edit:
  1. Reverted your edits: The information you have added to the introduction is repeated/duplicate (meaning that it is already present and explained in detail further down in the article—where it belongs to) and poorly written. Now, this may seem like no big deal to you, but it is to me among others, and it does make a difference on whether the article is good or not for a lot of people. The introductory section is not supposed to have in-depth information, otherwise it's not an introductory section. You're probably gonna say that "it's just a useful summary", but the fact is that the article has enough repeated information (which makes it much longer than it has to be), and a "summary" is not necessary. That's what you have a table of contents for, and the introduction is not supposed to have that kinda of stuff anyway. Briefly mentioning all the variants in the family is a good idea, but specifying when and where they were introduced/adopted should definitely stay in the Variants section.
  2. Formatted the units: I additionally fixed the formatting on the units (milimeters), which were all written without spaces (such as "5.56mm", as opposed to the correct form "5.56 mm"). I know you don't care about little details like these, which is probably the reason why you completely reverted my edit, and not only the introduction details.
  3. Resized the infobox image to 300 pixels: The usual size for pretty much all firearms infoboxes is 300px. The M16 image is not high resolution, and anything beyond that makes it pixelated. Same as above, you reverted everything, and gave no reason for that.
  4. Removed unnecessary invisible tags ("Please do not vandalize" and such).
  • Your edit:
  1. Completely reverted my edit, stating that the "previous introduction is not accurate": That doesn't make sense, given that my edit didn't contain any type of innacurate information, and merely removed duplicate information, among other formatting edits. Coming up with unfounded reasons for reverts doesn't sound very good to me. It looks to me like you are way too possessive about the pages you edit, and that obviously goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. If you keep up that attitude, I'm gonna have to take some kind of action about it. This is not the first time you do that, so it's not like I haven't asked you before.

P.S. I'm not the only one who has complained about your attitude in Wikipedia, and you know that. Please take the time to think about it and make some sense. —Squalla 23:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK well you have some good points, and some I disagree with. As for the M16 page, I have included your edits, as well as those of other users (not just things I added). Your other allegations are unfounded, as I have always followed and continue to follow wikipedia rules as best as possible.
Disagreements over page content are common on the wikipedia, and can be resolved with friendly compromises. However, your veiled threats and bullying are not appropriate. Ve3 23:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
What allegations are unfounded? If you actually adress my complaints instead of saying such things, we may get somewhere. Point out what "allegations are unfounded", and tell me why. You haven't "always followed Wikipedia rules" and guidelines, otherwise I wouldn't be here writing this, nor would other users have done the same in this very page.
Again, this is not the first time we're going through the same issues. Yes, things can be resolved with friendly compromises, but since you are apparently unwilling to do so, it becomes pointless. I'm not threatening you, much less bullying. I am, after all, trying to resolve things friendly before we're forced to take this discussion to moderators. There's nothing inappropriate about it.
As for your claim that the present introduction was written by various users, that is unfounded. I have just checked the article's history, and as far as I can see, the changes to the introduction (which had been that way for a pretty long time) were for the most part made by yourself, with very little editing (irrelevant to this discussion) made by Thatguy96. —Squalla 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, we have things we agree about and things we disagree about. However, we need to focus on how we can improve the M16 page. If you have a problem with the introduction, Im sure we can reach a compromise. Ve3 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As I've already stated above, I suggest the removal of the second paragraph from the introduction/lead section. Information about when and by whom each variant was introduced does not belong in the introduction, and again, it is already explained in the proper place. That also applies to the brief ammunition explanation. —Squalla 03:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You have again reverted a well-justified edit by D.E. Watters (talk) without providing any justification yourself for this action. You have also failed to reply to my previous message (above). You claim that we need to focus on how we can improve the page, but so far you haven't provided a single argument to backup your edits and point of view. I can't see how we're possibly going to "reach a compromise" this way. —Squalla 16:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact I have responded, and no, it was not a pure revert (in fact his other changes were kept). I agreed with nearly all of your aformentioned changes, with the exception of the reduced introduction. In addition I continually provide numerous arguments for my edits.
We have not talked about the intro, becuase we have not identified that as our sole disagreement until now- which was not something you reverted last time anyway. If you want to focus on improving pages and compromise, Im more then open to that- but your other bullying is not appropriate. Ve3 16:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"In fact I have responded" — No, you haven't. I'm referring to the reply I left directly above my last message, dated 03:19, 5 November 2006 (UCT). You have only responded now that I left another message.
"it was not a pure revert (in fact his other changes were kept)" — I'm referring to the major part of the edit (the introduction duplicate material), not his correction on the XM16. That's what we're discussing here.
"I agreed with nearly all of your aformentioned changes, with the exception of the reduced introduction. In addition I continually provide numerous arguments for my edits." — The material you added to the introduction is duplicate (as I've stated numerous times), and out-of-place. You haven't provided any argument on why it should be kept.
"We have not talked about the intro, becuase we have not identified that as our sole disagreement until now- which was not something you reverted last time anyway." — I have clearly pointed out the issues I have with your edits on my first post; that is more than enough to identify the disagreements. I thought the whole point of this discussion was to avoid a revert war and reach a compromise; however, considering the fact that you seem unwilling to take this discussion anywhere and keeps editing the page without solving the issues first, I'm starting to wonder what's the point.
"Im more then open to that- but your other bullying is not appropriate." — What's not appropriate is your apparent attempt to avoid my questioning (I have yet to figure out the "bullying" part of it). —Squalla 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Well I believe we are making meaningfull progress. As for your other accusations, I disagree- but it is more important to focus on the page. It has taken time, but that progress is good news. Ve3 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment.

Could you comment on my request for adminship? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asams10 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Assault rifle, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] Page moves

Please stop moving pages such as M240 machine gun and M60 machine gun; these titles have been discussed to exaustion, and you can read the discussion and see the general consensus here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force#Firearm Calibre Naming Conventions, Round II. —Squalla 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the previous discussion and will stop. That said, it is wrong not capitlize U.S. Military designations and not the place of the wiki (or any encyclopedia staff) to contradict this. Ve3 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have moved the pages back. Can I expect this to be settled for the time being? —Squalla 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I have seen the discussion now. I seriously don't care that much either way (I have actually made a number of uncaped military page designations in my time). That said, my opinion of late is that in the long run it is probably better to have the correct military short names. Happy new year btw. Ve3
Yeah, Happy New Year. —Squalla 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Logo heer.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo heer.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Spiw prototype.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Spiw prototype.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --RobthTalk 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also Image:A spiw proto.gif --RobthTalk 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:M60andsoldierwithammoinnam.jpg

Where is this image from? The source listed on commons is the English Wikipedia image page, but that page never had any source specified. —Centrx→talk • 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding the US DoD was the source, however, the specific source is no longer available on the Internet. I recommend the image be deleted, unless somone can find can find a new way to reference a source for it. Ve3 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Hkg41cover.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Hkg41cover.jpg. I noticed 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 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 16:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo skb.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo skb.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] commons:Image:M16duckbill.gif

We need any sources for this pic. thx--Sanandros (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And this please. --Tarawneh (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)