User talk:ROG5728/Archive 2

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

GA Hold

Please see Talk:5.7x28mm/GA1 for more information. Chris (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Passed GA. Good job. Chris (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to hear. ROG5728 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Glock

I have fixed the Glock Pistol page to provide specific linking to other Wiki pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_pistol#Users Thanks. Hydra25 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the lack of Wiki links. The text you added needs a reliable source stating that those organizations use the weapon. You can cite the source using one of the citation templates. If you cannot find a reliable source saying that those organizations use the weapon, the text will be removed because without a source it will not be verifiable. ROG5728 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

One down, 3 to go. Hydra25 (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Citations added. Fixed. Hydra25 (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Absolute Astronomy citation because it says the source of the text is Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. However, one of the other citations you added is suitable and mentions all four of these organizations as being users, so I applied that citation to all of them. ROG5728 (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Hydra25 (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jakebradson, Lbrad and the others.

Interesting. Seems like we should open an SPI. Do you want to do it or should I? Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would do that. I don't have experience with SPI. Since the third account (Special:Contributions/Jgilkinson) was created several years ago, it seems more likely to be a meatpuppet. However, the second account (Special:Contributions/Jakebradson) is almost certainly a sockpuppet based on the grammatical similarities, the small number and aim of his edits, and the fact that he registered for that specific purpose shortly after you extended Lbrad2001's block. ROG5728 (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Rog, I've asked Madomann to enter into discussions over their edits and provide sources and also asked that he or she clarify a comment on their talk page as a matter or urgency.

As some feedback for yourself, I'd strongly suggest that you seek to discuss contested edits with other editors in the first instance and assume that they are acting in good faith - in this case you have edit warred with Madomann and communicated with them only via warning templates and edit summaries rather than attempted to have a good-faith discussion with them, and I've noticed that you haven't discussed some of the other contested edits you've reported to me in the last few weeks. This may have contributed to Madomann's agressive response to your actions and comments and is an area where you can build on. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on his talk page essentially repeated what was said by myself (and ignored by him) earlier in my edit summaries at Corner Shot and CornerShot. That is, he needs to provide a source because none of the given sources support his edits. I did not seek to discuss it beyond warning templates and edit summarys because of other text he added in the same edits, such as "it's a must & essential asset for Special Troop Forces in most advanced armys". That text isn't deserving of discussion beyond warning templates. It's very clearly wrong and the templates sufficiently explain that.

I did thoroughly discuss the content dispute at Talk:Walther WA 2000 and when the second editor reverted me there I had already thoroughly discussed the dispute on the talk page, which I pointed him to. I reported the second editor when he simply made an uncivil comment and continued to revert me without discussing it. In the end, I did discuss the dispute there thoroughly but I can't force other editors to do the same. ROG5728 (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page edits

I apologize if you found my edits to be vandalism. Actually, I tried to remove comments from the discussion page that contained insults and/or links to images which had nothing to do with the topic. I would like to talk with you if this were possible. I removed from the discussion page of 'Automatic Pistol'.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.13.241.158 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of your changes weren't constructive. Specifically, you changed an editor's comment to say that he vandalized the page, when he didn't actually say that in his original comment. You also removed an editor's signature from his comment. The 4chan website link you removed was important because it pointed out a thread at 4chan where the individuals were discussing and encouraging others to vandalize the article with edits such as this one. Please don't change or remove other editors' comments and signatures on talk pages, unless they contain blatant vandalism. ROG5728 (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave it as it is. The comment I modified (the one says "I added 'YOU'", well, I am the author of it. I wrote it some time ago. However, being an "annonymous" comment plus the fact that I use an USB modem it can be argued that it was not 'me'(as my IP is dynamic). so I think the more responsible thing to do is to leave it as it is. The other author's signature... It was not my intention. Probably when I removed a vandalization of another user's comment... Original was "Im going to change it" and vandalized was "Im a moral fag". The 4chan link gave me a "404 error not found", so I assumed it was a broken link, althrought it could have been my connection. Again, I apologize for any problems I have caused and you have my word this will not happen again. My IP may be dynamic, but "I" will not make any more edits, of any tipe. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.13.241.158 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That is understandable, but please leave other editors' links in place even if they're broken. Automatic pistol has been the subject of ongoing vandalism by numerous IP editors repeatedly adding text such as this. The 4chan link pointed to a thread where the original IP editor was recruiting others to vandalize the page. If you look at the history tab on the talk page, these editors were also trying to cover up the 4chan thread by persistently removing the link from the talk page in the same manner that you did. Essentially you happened to be editing in the wrong place at the wrong time, because your removal mirrored the recent edits of a large number of IP vandals. No worries. ROG5728 (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

MAC11

I received a note of unnecessary editing. Sorry. I found extranious information in text that should be removed. However, accurate the information, IS. The Agent in question is ME. The federal license required was mine mine and the information is verifiable. The information provided is little known and should be recorded. Personally I known worldwide for my expertise in firearms, firearms patents and pending, and a well known firearms manufacturer. I thought it best NOT to have my name in the text and therefore was removed. This part of my history, where that expertise comes from, is best not recorded on Wikipedia. On the other hand we can withdraw factual information completely, restore original text verifiable by BATF, or leave it as it is for public information, previously unknown, and unpublished fact. Karl C. Lippard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karllippard (talk 00:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC) • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia policy also dictates that editors cannot use themselves as a source for their edits, so a verifiable external source is needed. ROG5728 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Case capacity

Hi,

I added a metric value for cartridge ase capacity to the 5.7x28 mm article you worked on very hard. Do not be alarmed that the US customary units value changed by 0.15 gr. This minor variation is within normal variables and typical measuring uncertainties.

Internal case volumes are established by weighing empty once fired cartridge cases from a production lot and filling the cases with fresh or distilled water (H₂O) up to the point of overflowing and weighing the water filled cases. The added weight of the water is then used to establish the liquid volume and hence the case capacity. This liquid volume measurement method can be practically employed to about a 0.01 to 0.02 ml or 0.15 to 0.30 grains of water precision level for fire arms cartridge cases. A case capacity establishment should best be done by measuring several fired cases from a particular production lot and calculating their average case capacity. This also provides insight in the uniformity of the sampled lot.

An actual H₂O case capacity test measurement of 4 fired .35 Whelen Remington cases resulted in:

Average H₂O case capacity (ml) = 4.56
Measured case capacity (ml)	4.57	4.54	4.52	4.60

The case capacity of different cartridge brands of a particular chambering can significantly vary between cartridge case manufacturers and even production lots.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That works. ROG5728 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

4.6x30mm, 5.7x28mm and C.I.P.

Wikipedia classifies these cartridges as PDW cartridges, which can be considered as a logical classification. C.I.P. does however not know such a cartridge category or class and hence classifies such cartridges different with consequences regarding proofing. Pistol and revolver cartridges are proofed at 130% and rifle cartridges at 125% of their C.I.P. maximum service pressure.
The 4.6x30mm is classified by C.I.P. as a pistol cartridge meaning it is proofed at 130% (520.0 MPa) of its C.I.P. maximum service pressure.
The 5.7x28mm is classified by C.I.P. as a rimless (rifle) cartridge meaning it is proofed at 125% (431.3 MPa) of its C.I.P. maximum service pressure.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Link at the 5.7x28 mm article

Hello ROG5728, what was wrong with the link to Ukrainian 5.7 tests, why you deleted it? Sincerely 5-7.com.ua team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.188.225 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia guidelines say that long lists of external links should be avoided. I removed the Ukrainian link specifically because it loads slowly and the primary language of the website isn't English. The website contains a lot of useful information, but the overall quality of the website probably isn't suitable for external links. ROG5728 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, what you can recommend to improve "overall quality" (except slow load time)? Project is non-commercial, we interested to make information as useful as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.78.65 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

By 'overall quality' I meant that the load time is slow and the grammar in the English version isn't high quality. The website isn't necessarily too poor to be used as a link, (since the test information is useful) but the 5.7x28mm article already contains several high quality external links, and the Wikipedia guidelines say that the list of external links should be kept as short as possible. ROG5728 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your opinion, will try to fix mentioned problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.18.205 (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Vandal

I keep seeing you deal with vandalism on my watchlist. Thanks. =) Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. ROG5728 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

HK UMP & MP7

Difficult to cite as they just walked past me on Haeundae Beach...I tried to find an online source, but can't, so delete it if you want, the facts are Wikipedia's loss. I am fully aware of the guidelines thanks Mztourist Mztourist (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And here's a link to a photo of ROK SWAT with a UMP: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?77723-Units-Using-HK-UMP45-9-40 Mztourist Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I found a source that says the Heckler & Koch MP7 is used in South Korea by various special forces. I added that source and information to the article. I haven't found a source yet that says the Heckler & Koch UMP is used in South Korea. That Militaryphotos image needs a caption from a reliable source in order to be a suitable source. ROG5728 (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pleased that you found an MP7 source that satisfies you. In relation to the HK UMP I note that there are a couple of {citation needed] notes in the opening para, why haven't you just deleted the uncited info with the same speed with which you have decided to delete my uncited ref that the ROK SWAT use the UMP? Mztourist Mztourist (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That article was not on my watchlist when those statements were added. Since they have been tagged and unsourced for months I went back now and removed them. ROG5728 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Round vs bullet

At AK-47, you corrected an editor who changed 'bullet' to 'round', and you summarized your reversion by writing "Incorrect, previous version was correct. 'Round' is a word interchangeable with cartridge, not bullet." I just wanted to let you know that in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, both meanings are included in the noun round. At the dictionary's definition page, meaning 10a is "one shot fired by a weapon or by each man in a military unit" and 10b is "a unit of ammunition consisting of the parts necessary to fire one shot". So, according to Merriam-Webster, a round can be just a bullet, or more what you were thinking—the whole works: the casing, the powder, the bullet, the firing cap, etc. Binksternet (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

10a says a round can be a "shot fired by a weapon", but that does not necessarily mean the bullet itself. The word 'shot' can mean 'projectile' but it most commonly denotes discharge of a firearm. Similarly, dictionary.com describes 'round' as "a single shot or volley" (1. f.) or "ammunition for a single shot or volley" (1. g.).

Regardless, I would say 'bullet' is the superior word for the application at AK-47, but 'projectile' would probably be more appropriate than either 'bullet' or 'round', since 'bullet' can also mean 'cartridge'. Projectile has the clearest meaning. ROG5728 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 'bullet' is better than 'round' in the two sentences at AK-47, and 'projectile' is better than both of them, which is why I came here to discuss the edit summary without attempting to undo your work in the article. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Daewoo K11

Why did you delete the edit I made regarding the UAE buying 40 K11s? It provided useful, verified information, particularly in relation to the unit cost. Mztourist (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That text didn't cite a source so the text was not verifiable. In addition, since it is an evaluation purchase it isn't appropriate in a list of actual users. However, if you can find a reliable source to cite for the text, it can be added back somewhere else in the article. ROG5728 (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It did cite a source, The National newspaper, the largest English language newspaper in the UAE and so was verifiable: http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100527/BUSINESS/705279926/0/RSS

But here are some more sources for you:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/05/26/UAE-picks-rifles-from-South-Korea/UPI-21461274891958/

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4622797

I note that a number of other users have commented on your over-zealousness in deleting other users' edits. Perhaps you should be a bit more trusting of the bona fides of other users and willing to check and or discuss their edits before just going ahead and deleting them.Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the text in question. As you can see by viewing the edit differences, it did not cite any source. In fact, the text itself was incorrect because the estimated price per rifle according to those sources is $14000, not $30000 as the text claimed. Apparently the citation was removed and the numbers were changed in an earlier unconstructive edit by IP 221.155.155.114. Since the article was not on my watchlist at that time, I was unaware of his edits and the incorrect text remained intact until I removed it later for being unsourced. In any case, as an evaluation purchase it should not be listed in the users section. I have added it back in the article summary. As for your comment on my "over-zealousness", if I had not removed the text for being unsourced it would have retained the incorrect numbers. ROG5728 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits cited both the source and the correct unit cost, I have no idea who vanadalized it before you deleted it. With regard to your overzealousness, as I said in my previous note, perhaps you should have searched the story or discussed it with me to revise it, rather than just deciding to delete factual information.Mztourist (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The text as you added it one month ago is irrelevant because that is not the version that I removed. I did not "delete factual information". The text, as I removed it, was both unsourced and factually incorrect. Wikipedia's verifiability policy exists for this reason. If I had not been "over-zealous" in following Wikipedia policy, that text at Daewoo K11 would have remained factually incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You either didn't read or understand my previous message. The fact that the UAE had bought K11s was easily verifiable, a source was contained in my previous message and subsequently removed, but rather than searching it or checking with me you just went ahead and deleted it. As on previous occasions noted above on your talk page, you justify your actions by the verifiability policy, but you don't seem to give equal weight to other policies such as the Civility pillar, the Editing policy and in particular Trying to fix problems, which states "Instead of deleting text, consider:

   * ...
   * requesting a citation by adding the ^{[citation needed]} tag
   * doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself"

I respect your efforts and research, but you are overzealous on verifiability (I see someone has already pointed out Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic to you) and it is not in the interests of the project that you alienate other users so that they stop contributing.Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I should have searched one month back into the article history before editing is absurd and hypocritical. You did not search the history yourself before commenting on my talk page, or before saying I "deleted verifiable factual information". If you had actually looked at the edit history yourself, you would have realized the version I removed was unsourced and factually incorrect. I have not been uncivil in removing some text without tagging it, because the section note in the users sections already fulfills the purpose of a fact tag:

"READ FIRST: This section is for cited entries only. Please do not add entries into this list without a citation from a reliable source. All entries without a citation will be removed. Thank you."

Meanwhile, your attempt to rally another user to my talk page constitutes disruptive behavior that is not at all in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Again, you are being hypocritical. If you actually read Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, it is applicable to yourself. The first point says: "1. Respect common standards - If the Wikipedia view of how articles should be presented differs from one's own perception of the subject, then it's important to recognize that Wikipedia has standards applicable to the community and all its members."

I am not obliged to find a source for any given text added by another user or IP. Even so, I have probably added more sources to the users lists than any single member in the firearms project. I understand you're upset you cannot add unsourced text to Wikipedia articles. In some cases I am too, but in the end I realize following Wikipedia policy produces better articles, and you need to realize that too. Again, if I had not been "over-zealous" in following Wikipedia policy, that text at Daewoo K11 would have remained factually incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are selective of which policies you choose to follow. In accordance with the Editing Policy you should have checked the UAE purchase by doing a simple search, but you chose not to and just deleted it instead. Your Block Tag is no defence to your failure to comply with the Editing Policy on deletion. You don't seem to work on the assumption that other users are acting in good faith and your aggressive deletions based on your belief in the primacy of verifiability simply alienates other users.Mztourist (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to take a time out from linking policies and actually read them. Editing policy says that editors should consider a number of actions when prepared to delete text, and I did consider those options. Again, nowhere does Wikipedia policy say I am obliged to find a source for any given text added by another editor. And again, in general I have added a vast number of sources to the users lists of gun articles. In contrast you have added, at most, one or two.

Even if I had searched and found a source for the text, I still would have moved or removed the text because as an evaluation purchase it was inappropriate for a list of actual users, and because it has little notability anyway. If you go back and actually read my edit summary for the removal, I said I removed the text because it was simply an evaluation purchase, not solely because it was unsourced.

The rifle's cost was never removed from the infobox, so the text in the users section did not contribute any information to the article except that the UAE purchased a small quantity of the rifles for evaluation. Such a purchase has very little notability unless a subsequent adoption follows, and so far it has not. But on top of having very little notability, the text was also factually incorrect and unsourced, so for one reason or another it absolutely deserved to be moved or removed. Since you produced a source, I added the text back (with correct numbers this time) in a more appropriate section of the article. If you are "alienated" by something so simple and understandable as another editor removing factually incorrect text with little notability and no source, perhaps the project is better off. ROG5728 (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your justifications change all the time... so the first foreign sale of a new generation individual weapon isn't notable? The Editing Policy is clear, but you just choose not to follow it. Mztourist (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My justification never changed. I removed the text because it was an evaluation purchase and because it didn't have a source. I said as much in my edit summary there and in my first comment in this section. It may be the first foreign sale of the weapon, but it isn't a 'sale' in the same sense as any of the other sales listed in the users sections. If a subsequent adoption follows, it is obviously notable. If not, it isn't notable. At this point in time the notability is questionable and in any case, as a evaluation purchase it shouldn't be listed in the users section.

The editing policy is clear, yes. It clearly says editors should consider a number of actions when prepared to delete text. I do consider those actions when deleting text and I have added a vast number of sources to the users lists in gun articles. However, I'm not obliged to find sources for text added by another editor. ROG5728 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)