User talk:Nukes4Tots/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

You might find this interesting. -- Yaf (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've read through his history. Looks like he's just a nutcase with a long history of sock puppetry starting (maybe) with a user named Jetwave Dave. Quite a waste of time for legitemate users. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, N4T. I've removed this little...nugget. It's in the history if you want to link to it in future. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment

The matter is being dealt with now, well done for keeping your cool. Happy editing, Chafford (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Currently the user in question has been blocked. Feel free to remove the above comments from your talk page, if they make you uncomfortable. Looks like you handled yourself well. I'd be interested in hearing about it, if you have any further problems with this. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm one step ahead of Luna here :) Thanks for holding ground against that weirdo :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

M1 Carbine

And how exactly is the photo required for reader comprehension in M1 Carbine? Does the article talk about Malcolm X at all? No. Even if it did, it would have to discuss the photo itself, as is done in Malcolm X. There's no way you can justify its use in M1 Carbine -- as it stands, it's pretty much the example cited in WP:NFC#Unacceptable uses Images #2. Note that I'm not asking for the image's deletion; it just doesn't belong here. howcheng {chat} 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but it's just that. This is, in fact, a matter of opinion. You don't decree that you are right, it's a community decision. This, being a concensus addition, should not be arbitrarily removed. If you weren't part of the concensus, check the talk page, edit histories, etc. The community seems to be for its inclusion on the page, though I understand you are not. Please take this to the M1 talk page as I doubt people will be reading this. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we're beyond opinion here - we're at the "if you keep ignoring policy, you'll be blocked" stage. So, please do not re-insert the picture into that article, and please do review WP:NFCC, specifically the sections pointed out to you already, several times. Also, do not call people "racist", as you did in the edit summary here. If you have an issue with our polices, bring them up on the appropriate talk page. Stop reverting people for enforcing them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't respond to threats. Especially if you're wrong. NFCC Guideline 2 states, "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses." That does no apply here as this was a historical event that cannot be reproduced. Further, the Policy he keeps quoting is, "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That's a matter of concensus opinion in this case, as I've made clear in the talk page and on edit summaries. So, unless you're an admin and you've decided to arbitrate this... uh... you're wrong too. As for being a racist, I made my case for that his actions were racist clear enough, so I doubt you've read that case at all. Please don't go off half-cocked. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours for Edit warring and inappropriate use of non-free content despite being warned to stop. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts: (others prior) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. You'll note from WP:3RR that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". Other people are attempting to enforce our Non free content policies, which exempts them from 3RR, as stated here. You are clearly violating this section (among others) of the NFC policy. You don't need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun; it just isn't necessary, as Fair use requires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"You do not need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun." This statement strikes me as a pejorative statement about guns. The image is of the firearm! How much more gunlike do you need an image to be? Nobody is addressing my primary argument, that whether or not it's appropriate is a matter of opinion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the image is of Malcolm X; he just happens to be holding a gun. Should we include that same photo in the article about neckties, or suits just because he happens to be in possession of them? I think not. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The photo was signifigant BECAUSE of the firearm, not merely because of Malcolm X. Your necktie analogy is absurd. That it was significant TO the gun was clearly stated on numerous entries by myself and others as well as edit comments and the talk page for the photo itself. Instead of discussing this, you banned me? While you may disagree, that is your OPINION. You're interpreting your opinion about its significance rather than the actual rule to block me. I'm expressing my opinion and defending a prior concensus on the matter. Hardly fair... but of course, that's my OPINION. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nukes4Tots (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocking admin has expressed an opinion about an interpretation of a WP policy that does not address the policy. Specifically, he stated "You don't need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun" (he underlined it). This admin clearly will not allow any argument for the inclusion of the photo because he is prejudiced against its use in an article about a gun. This statement was the reason for my block, not any WP policy.

Decline reason:

The policy against edit warring is clear enough. You were warned about it but chose to disregard the warning as a "threat". If you ignore warnings, you have to accept the consequences. — Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I'd ask that any reviewing administrator to also see the discussion at Talk:M1 carbine#Malcolm X photo, where several administrators (4 if I counted correctly, including myself), amongst others, point out the relevant policies and guidelines. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I've blocked you, a lot has been happening on that article. Lots of reverting by lots of people. I dont think it is fair to leave only you blocked at this point, so I'd be willing to unblock you assuming that you agree to not edit war any further (on that page, or any other). There is no reason you cannot discuss civilly, without reverting the edits until a decision is made. Its your call. If you agree to stop edit warring, just request unblock again, noting so. (Also note that the page is going to be protected to prevent anybody else from edit warring) - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Hi. I'd appreciate if you didn't remove the images from the article. Other articles have images that don't include the subject but are relevant to the article, such as Emma Goldman. I'm trying to get the article to Featured article status, and one of the criteria is that the article should have images.

Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, other featured articles such as Emma Goldman have done the same thing. But delete what you think is appropriate. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jetwave Dave

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jetwave Dave. I've properly formatted the case page and left you some questions to answer. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

re:Jetwave

Yeah, you could say that I've had a run in or two with out mutual friend. There's been probably a dozen more that have popped up that aren't listed on either of the checkusers, mostly variations on my username or real name. Thankfully, the off-wiki harassment has mostly stopped by now, and he now busies himself with creating accounts like User:Parsecboy is a Paedophile that are easily tracked and blocked. I'm not sure how User:DroneZone turned up as unrelated, as it is a name used frequently by Jetwave, and the edits follow the same pattern, especially the fascination with the Korobov prototypes. Some of the photos he's uploaded are the exact same photos Jetwave loves to post in the various weapons forums. I can only hope, in a gallows humor sort of way, that he's moved on from me and latched himself on to you :) But seriously, if and when more of his socks pop up, I'll be more than happy to block on site. Oh, and User:Dmcdevit is aware of the Jetwave situation, and I've been taking socks one or two at a time to him to checkuser for a while now. I'm sure he'll work with you as well. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd. Poor kid probably has some significant psychological disorder. Tedious. It's a shame. The TKB-022 was an intriguing series of prototypes. They pioneered the rising chamber and forward ejection tube. The rising chamber was duplicated (partially) by the Steyr ACR. It's now a key feature in caseless and telescoped plastic case research in the US. Instead of a simple rising chamber, they're using a pivoting chamber. Simpler and more robust, I guess. The forward ejection tunnel is used on the FN-2000 and Kel-Tec .308 rifle (RBF?). A serious article on the subject might be of passing interest to some. Too bad the current articles are tainted. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, (and this may be some idiot spouting off, for all I know), the guy was discharged from some cadet school in the UK, and barred enlistment into the British Army on psychological grounds. It is too bad that the articles he's created are tainted to a degree. Some day, it might be good to delete them completely and start from scratch. Parsecboy (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This guy sure does love to stalk people and post their personal information, thankfully I chose to only use this user name on wikis, so he couldn't track me down to anywhere else. I can't believe that DroneZone was unrelated, I am positive that it's jetwave, their edit histories are almost exactly the same with the exception of jetwave's obsession with trans-gendered british military personnel. I think he got around the checksum somehow. — DanMP5 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, where's there's smoke, there's fire. Your instincts are probably good on that puppet as well. He's been denied already enough times he's likely learning how to cover his tracks. I did a search for some of the prototypes he's interested in and noted that most of the posts on military images.com about these guns are from shadowy characters (probably the same guy) that end up getting banned for similar reasons as he got banned here. It seems that ALL of his firearms information is sourced from the Tula museum. Again, odd. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Input on C7/C8 merge proposal

I would appreciate your input on the new proposal to merge the C8 page with the C7 page (Discuss). I believe it was abruptly ended the last time, and that the lack of "consensus" was based on false observations and inaccurate understandings, as much as legitimate points. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gas operation proposal

See my proposal at User talk:Geodkyt. I think we all need to lay out sources first, where everyone can see them, and then work on a compromise that is well referenced and takes all sources into account. scot (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice slam, thanks

I noticed your comment on reverting my edit. That will help condition me for more face slaps by the stock market. If you were to accord the benefit of the doubt that I had made the edit in good faith, you would not have removed the text which disambiguates one Hiram Maxim from the other. Apparently you feel it is more useful to have the reader click to Hiram Maxim, whose page title has been changed to resolve this ambiguity, to Hiram Stevens Maxim to distinguish this Hiram, inventor of the Maxim Gun, from son, Hiram Percy Maxim, inventor of the Maxim Silencer. My research did not uncover why this is not a useful clarification. What does yours show? Newportm (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nt entirely sure how to read your edits. I reverted your edits because they were inappropriate, not because I intended to personally insult you. You added a statement about the Maxim Silencer under the Maxim Gun's introduction. Inappropriate. You added information about the US Firearms Corp under the FN 1910 and the two are completely unrelated. Your dubious edits are unreferenced. Please be more careful in the future and consider not making edits unless you have a reference. What does this have to do with the stock market? How did I make you feel that I didn't think you were operating in good faith? I've assumed good faith and I Was giving you constructive advice. Please assume good faith from me as well. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find mention of the Maxim Silencer inappropriate in connection with mention of Hiram Percy Maxim on the Maxim gun page associated with Hiram Stevens Maxim, it is because you know about one hundred times more about guns and related things than most readers. Don't you think that the majority of the people who use Wikipedia are probably not "perfect readers," and that our burden as editors is to reach out to more, rather than fewer, readers. Therefore, while it is true that the Maxim gun was invented by Hiram Maxim, is it not more true to state that it was invented by Hiram Stevens Maxim. If mention of his son, who also designed implements related to guns, is inappropriate on this page about the Maxim gun, you could simply have edited that part out and left the Hiram Stevens Maxim name intact. Just because you can easily revert with one click doesn't mean you always need to pull that trigger. How about if we add a footnote to this first paragraph pointing out that he had a son, Hiram Percy Maxim, who is credited with the Maxim Silencer. Doesn't that seem like a more encyclopedic option than just deleting everthing? Newportm (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an inappropriate edit, I reverted it. It's incumbant on you to get it right. If it was a simple correction, I'd have made it. You and I must disagree that it's the least bit relevant. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting this company's info for tangentially related...

This company you refer to owns the Maxim name, all rights to manufacture under it, has a large archive of its materials, produces this product, and therefore can hardly be considered to be tangential to the thing itself. Newportm (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then verify it. But, the FN 1910 is completely unrelated as is the Maxim Silencer to the Maxim Gun. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is cited on the U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Company page. It may change your mind about the Model 1910 made by USFA [6] being related to the FN model 1910. Newportm (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I read this first. They are making a M1911 clone and using the designation M1910. There are hundreds of things called the M1910, but this one happens to be unrelated to the FN Model 1910. A simple glance at the picture would suffice. Reading the text, however, reveals that it's related to the Colt M1910, not the FN 1910. This is basic, simple stuff. Please, again, READ what you're referencing and learn something prior to posting. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. Newportm (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Garand Cite

In this edit, you tried to add a citation to the Garand article. It is a <ref> named "knaack". Unfortunately that ref name is not defined in that article, causing an error message in the reference list at the bottom. Nor does it appear to be in the edit history such that I could resurrect it for you. Can you provide the complete citation? --J Clear (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian club

I notice you reverted Garand described as "Canadian". Since I imagine many Canadians, even firearms enthusiasts, don't know he was born here (I didn't till not so long ago, & most sources I've seen (few as they are, admittedly} don't mention it), would you have a problem with it being "Canadian-born"? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's clear in the article on Garand himself. I'm a Rush fan myslef and love Canada, but I don't think it's appropriate as Garand immigrated when he was very young and wasn't known to identify himself as either Canadian or Canadian Born. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the good work you doing with gun-related articles! --Boris Barowski (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I try. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jetwave has followed us to Commons

Hi, Nukes. I wanted to let you know a recent checkuser I filed on Commons turned up Nuke4Tot, another Jetwave sock aimed at harassing you. I reverted his edits to your Commons user and talk pages, but it's likely he'll continue socking on Commons, so you'll want to keep an eye out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Assitance with Misr/AKM

Hi, User:Orthopraxia is revert-warring with me over the Misr copy of the AKM, it's a straightforward copy of the Soviet AKM, he has not even bothered arguing his point and accused me of vandalism, which indicates he is there to troll or doing it out of blind nationalism (he claims to be Egyptian). I would appreciate if you could weigh in your opinion on the talk page. He also seems to be inserting Egypt as a user for many other modern Western weapon types (UMP, Minimi) without providing any sort of references, keep an eye out on him. Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins have been notified regarding this user. Koalorka (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we have. See Koalorka's page for discussion, if you're interested. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pistol cartridge Pmax

The information source is C.I.P.. If you download the C.I.P. decisions, texts and tables (free current C.I.P. CD-ROM version download (100+ MB in ZIP and RAR format)) you can look up a vast amount of legal and technical information and technical drawings regarding ammunition and firearms in English, French or German. Under "Tables" you find, amongst other data, Pmax data for almost every commercially produced cartridge. In C.I.P. member states (like the UK) this data is used as the only applicable legal standard. C.I.P. uses the metric system to express quantities. For pressure you have to know 10 bar = 1 MPa, so 3250 bar = 325.00 MPa.

Please note that the C.I.P. technical drawings are copyrighted, so please do not copy and paste them into Wikipedia. Since the 9 mm Luger (its official C.I.P. nomenclature) is a German cartridge (Germany is a C.I.P. member state), I think the C.I.P. Pmax can be regarded as an appropriate source in this case. There are also relations between C.I.P. and NATO EPVAT testing standards. NATO obviously chose to ignore SAAMI standards.

The American equivalent of C.I.P. is the SAAMI although operating differently. SAAMI is a manufacturer's association. In contrast to C.I.P.’s decisions the recommendations of SAAMI have not the force of law. These two main ammunition standards organisations are cooperating in an effort to unify their rules, though there are still hard at work to solve differences between their rules. These differences consist of varying chamber dimensions and maximum allowed chamber pressures. There are also technical variations in the way chamber pressures are measured giving different results.

If you are aware where SAAMI publishes its data on the internet that information would be great for Wikipedia. As long as SAAMI data can not be directly accessed from the SAAMI website itself, I personally tend to question SAAMI data cited somewhat, since the cited SAAMI data on Wikipedia comes from third party sources.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to say that SAAMI is the only one of the two that I've heard quoted with any regularity. Further, it's an American association and... hate to say it, but The American sporting market is bigger than the rest of the world markets combined. Since about 90% of the world reloading market is in the US or Canada, I'm hard-pressed to accept the euro-centric body just because their data is easilly accessed. Further, the figures you listed were significantly different from those listed in the source I referenced. It's not that I mind so much, however if we're going to agree on one source, it needs to be discussed thoroughly under the firearms project, not on my talk page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nukes. And if we're going to start using CIP data in the absence of SAAMI data, it should be explicitly sourced as such or else it will be both misleading and confusing to the many knowledgeable people who are generally familiar with SAAMI specs.--Ana Nim (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)