User talk:ROG5728

	Archives: 1, 2, 3

Hi,

This is my talk page. I actively revert vandalism and other edits that are not in accordance with Wikipedia policies, so before leaving me a comment please see the following pages:

---

What does adding a refname do in an article?

Does it send the ref to another page? Make it easier to cite elsewhere in the page? Something else?

(Curious about the functionality)

--Deathbunny (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming references saves the editor from having to enter all the reference details over again each time a reference is reused in the article. See here for an example. In this edit, the reference was given a name and then the name was cited a second time further down the page. Naming references also prevents the same citation from showing up inside the reference list as multiple citations. Instead, if you reuse a citation by its name, the article will group it into a single citation with multiple instances (a, b, c, d, etc). This can be seen in the example edit's reflist. ROG5728 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live and learn. Thanks. --Deathbunny (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ROG5728 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, just so we don't double-tap, I reported User:85.100.79.99 to Vandalism in Progress for his impressive 22 destructive spammings in a 4-hour period. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the notice, I was planning to do the same on his next violation. ROG5728 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, if you see more of him, you may want to mention it where I have filed yesterday at the entry to blacklist him. I've already mentioned part of this mornings events there. I didn't see all of them evidently. He's evading a block. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now blacklisted.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ROG5728, first let me say that I am contacting you specifically about this since you seem to be a fairly regular editor on the FN FAL article. The reason I'm contacting you is because I am seeing how much support there is for a spinoff article on the British/Commonwealth/Inch pattern FAL's (L1A1, C1, L2A1) before I think about putting it live. I currently have an article draft going ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:L1A1_FAL/L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle ), compiled from relevant content from the FAL article, and a couple of new sections and a new page lead. I feel there is enough distinction between the FN FAL proper and the Inch pattern/Commonwealth guns (similar to how there are various pages for any of the numerous AK-47 derivatives, the FN MAG & M240, or the AH-64 Apache and the AgustaWestland Apache)to warrant this an article, but would like to know your opinions on the matter. Also, if you have any suggestions for my draft, feel free to suggest corrections/improvements/whatever

Thank you for your consideration.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just commented at Talk:FN FAL. The current FN FAL article is cluttered and a partial split does seem like it may be the best way to go about fixing it. The Combat Guns source by Bishop supports some of the more basic information regarding the L1A1. When I get a chance I will apply citations for everything covered by Bishop in the source (at FN FAL and/or the new article, in the event that consensus is met). ROG5728 (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heckler & Koch HK21 has not ever been used by Suomen armeija (Finnish Defence Force), so stop adding it to users of that weapon. First and only 7.62 NATO caliber LMG which FDF uses is Leopard 2 tanks MG3. Only HK weapons FDF uses are MP5 submachinegun and HK69A1. --91.153.26.148 (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the article (Small Arms Review) disagrees with you -- it says that Finland does use or has used the HK21. Your claims are not suitable evidence to the contrary. Please see WP:OR. ROG5728 (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False claim in 13 year old article doesnt proof anything and I dont have to proof anything to you. Show any other source to your claim. Bet you cant find any, 'cos there aint any. FDF does not nor has ever used HK21, ask anyone. --91.153.26.148 (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't simply declare the source (Small Arms Review) to be incorrect based on your own original research, and if you continue to remove the source and information without justification, I will go ahead and report your behavior to an administrator. ROG5728 (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False claim in some 13 year old web site is not proof of anything and if you ask straight from Finnish Defence Forces, or any other source which knows anything, you hear that this weapon is not, nor has ever been used by FDF. --91.153.26.148 (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @91.153.26.148, I don't want to make you look rather silly but the website was started in 1996, not 1998 if you consider it as a 13 year old website. Moreover, the copyright reads as REMTEK 1996-2011, which means that it is renewed and updated on a very regular basis. If you think that the website is erroneous in their report, you should be the one telling them off, not us here. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co. article was "first published in the December 1998 edition of Small Arms Review", so THIS ARTICLE IS 13 YEARS OLD. And the fact is, that Finnish Defence Forces has not, nor does now use this mentioned weapon, no mather what 13 year old web-article falsely claims. --91.153.26.148 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) @91.153.26.148, please be civil in your interaction with other editors on Wikipedia, do not use inflammatory tone during you conversation with us. FYI, the onus is now on you to prove that ROG5278 is wrong since he has already provided a reliable online source for citation in the article page, on the other hand you've done nothing constructive here but hurling a lot of abuse in the direction of ROG5278. Knock it off~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former users are included in the users lists in Wikipedia gun articles, so the age of that particular source is not a problem. If anything, it only shows that Small Arms Review, as a source, has been around awhile. It can't simply be discredited with an editor's original research. ROG5728 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explane to me, how can I proof what our army uses or not use? These things are so called military secrets, but FDF has never claimed to use this weapon, not any other 7.62 NATO caliper LMG, and in last 13 years this (false) claim is only mention of our use of this weapon. --91.153.26.148 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One way to discredit the current source would be to demonstrate a reliable external source that chronologically lists all machine guns that have been used by Finland. However, it would have to be clearly indicated, in the source, that all of the machine guns are being listed (both past and present) and not just the current ones. If you find such a source, go ahead and post it here for consideration. Keep in mind that blogs/forums and similar anonymous sources are not accepted on Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the GOD! Proof otherwise. --91.153.26.148 (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @91.153.26.148, you've been proven wrong and you're now being BLOCKED for your disruptive editing and edit warring behaviours. See you in 24 hours, GOD. (PS: Do it again and you will get blocked again for potentially 48 hours or more.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's right however. The FDF have never used the HK 21, nor has it ever standardized the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. How does one prove an article is incorrect? Do I need to drag the author of that article out from retirement and ask for a personal retraction statement? I think the lack of any other supporting references are a good indication that the article in question contains perhaps dubious information. Print media has and will continue to make factual mistakes. Why is this such an elusive conclusion for some of you procedure drones? 184.175.32.71 (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As was stated earlier in this discussion, one way to discredit that source would be to demonstrate a reliable external source that chronologically lists all machine guns that have been used by Finland. Regardless, immediately following this discussion that source was tagged as being potentially unreliable, so it's not an issue anymore. ROG5728 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the wrong sourcing of the anonymous user, I think you should put Bolivia back in. The photos that are uploaded by User:Israel_soliz (?) should suffice? He has several pictures of a Bolivian procession/defilé. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I added Bolivia back to the users list. The photo you mentioned won't suffice as an actual source because it's an anonymous upload, so I'll include a {{citation needed}} tag until a suitable source is found for Bolivia. ROG5728 (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that some articles haven't images yet. The following are: TDI Disraptor, Ultimax 100, CIS 40 GL, CIS 40 AGL, Heckler & Koch HK417, Pindad PM3, ST Kinetics CPW, VBR-Belgium CQBW, Special Operations Assault Rifle, QBZ-03, AK-200, Magpul PDR (article has line art) and RPG-32. Thank you. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC) If you have the image, please read the copyrights.[reply]

ROG5728Hello my name is peter card ii, from the day that project detroit was brought to bushmaster i have been involved. Every round fired through the ACR was either by me or under my watch. I worked at Bushmaster for 13 years. I now work at Remingtons R&D center in Elizabethtown KY. Every change that has been made through the redesign was tested by me and approved by me. I think I qualify as a source. Cerberus shut the program down at Bushmaster in October, and moved the ACR program to E-town. They moved me with the program, but not the rest of my co-workers from Bushmaster. They deserve the recognition, as when we first received the Masada, it broke after 6 rounds. It has now passed 14,900 rounds of continuous use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtney97 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That information would constitute original research -- it is "material for which no reliable published source exists." Note that Wikipedia policy requires external sources (either books or reliable websites) for material of this sort; the policy is especially applicable in this case, because specific individuals' names are being listed. ROG5728 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, if i am to understand you correctly, the person who knows the most about this weapon, has been involved with this weapons from the beginning and is still working on the weapon cannot add any information or edit the article for correctness. the article is outdated, and none of the specs are current. Courtney97 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC) One more question, I have reems of notes,drawings, test data, etc through developent. Pictures from my testing are used in our advertising...And it is easily verifyable through a phone call to either Remington Defense or Bushmaster.Courtney97 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since your information hasn't been published by a reliable external source (either in print or online), yes, it would be considered original research; and as such, it wouldn't be acceptable for use in the article. As for the weapon specifications, if yours are correct they are likely supported by at least one reliable external source of some sort. ROG5728 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rog, I raised at WT:MOSNUM the matter of the lack of spacing in the article title 5.7×28mm, which goes against MOSNUM and the ISO (5.7 × 28 mm). Within the article, it's a bit inconsistent now. What is your opinion? Tony (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I replied at WT:MOSNUM. I don't think this is a case where MOSNUM needs to be applied to such an extent. ROG5728 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that the Knight's Armament Company PDW is now outdated and unreliable article. The missing content are production date and availability. Anything can you redevelop this article, along with VBR-Belgium PDW and VBR-Belgium CQBW? Thank you. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made some corrections at Knight's Armament Company PDW and fixed the official website link at the end of the article. Specifications (and similar information) can be incoporated into the article from that website link. With regards to all three weapons you mentioned, I am not sure of production dates, or if the weapons are even in production at the moment; the official websites don't give any clear indication, either. ROG5728 (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also develop my articles Pindad SS3 and Pindad SS4, new undiscovered articles, and don't forget missing information on Pindad. Thank you. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move 4.6x30mm and Heckler & Koch-related articles into HK "weapon name" per WT:MOSNUM Thank you. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AK-200 is now outdated. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does 7.92x24mm S chamber Browning Hi-Power and ST Kinetics CPW? --Kungfu2187 (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is armor-piercing variant of .45 ACP. If you see armor-piercing variants of .357 SIG and 9x18mm Makarov, please visit http://www.fsdip.com for a list of armor-piercing cartridges. VBR-Belgium is the notable manufacturer of armor-piercing variants of non-PDW cartridges such as 9x19mm Parabellum and .45 ACP. Thank you --Kungfu2187 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

found 3 F.S.D.I.P. pages, [1], [2] and [3]. Thank you. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDI Vector and TDI Disraptor needing to redevelop, needing information about the new multicaliber TDI Vector variant, the K10. Thank you. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Roger,

Thanks for restoring that information on the AT4 page. I checked back two revisions, and thought I had all of it restored. But it was back five revisions. I don't know who originally put in the part about the "Nazi Zombies" but he/she was a busy beaver. You know if they would work as hard on editing or starting new pages really needed as they do at vandalism Wiki would be awesome. But they find more satisfaction in vandalism for some strange reason. The Grenade page they are always messing with. Again, sorry I did not check back far enough and thanks.JackJackehammond (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem. Looks like the bot reverted the last edit and missed the other. ROG5728 (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for your hard work, especially on the FN P90 and FN Five-seveN articles. I was very impressed by the writing and organization of each page; they are great examples of what Wikipedia articles should strive for. I look forward to one day seeing these pages as featured articles! :) Technician Fry (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem. I hope to have both of the articles featured before too long. ROG5728 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROG, I'm not familiar with editing wiki pages, so hopefully I'm contacting you in the correct method.. I added the AE57 load info on the 5.7 page, and see I need a citation for the velocity I claimed. I have links to a lot of chronograph tests on youtube. Here's the one for the AE load. I don't know how to add citations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajFeL_ERX3g (Buffman LT1 (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Buffman, unfortunately YouTube videos are not accepted as reliable sources unless they come from an official source (e.g. FNH USA). In this case, we can just keep the velocity numbers intact with a CN tag until an official source from Federal or FNH USA surfaces. Thanks for going to the trouble to add the info on the AE load, though. ROG5728 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Kind of hard to put a chronograph into doubt, but I see for accuracy of the article something from Federal or FNH, would be better. thanks (Buffman LT1 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hey ROG, Are you an admin/sysops here at the Wiki? There are several articles that require following a correct naming convention. Can you move the pages to the correct name? The correct name for these articles is actually a redirect link to the incorrectly named page. Just trying to clean up the pages within the project. If you can, I can provide you a list (it is one of the categories I created for discussion). I posted a note in each of the pages regarding the proposition to move it to the correct page as well. DeusImperator (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not an administrator, but I went ahead and moved 7 mm Remington Magnum to 7mm Remington Magnum, and 6.5 mm Remington Magnum to 6.5mm Remington Magnum. The 7mm Remington Magnum pages are now error-free, but the talk page at 6.5mm Remington Magnum still has the unnecessary space due to an interfering redirect. That talk page can be fixed by making an uncontroversial move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests. ROG5728 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measurement should be write leaving space between the words. To write leaving space between number and unit is correct. For example, 10mm is wrong and 10 mm is right. And don't move original title which have a space between the words.--777sms (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That may be correct for article titles such as 10 mm caliber, but not the other titles like 9x19mm Parabellum. ROG5728 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To write leaving space between number and unit is apply to all kind of units of measurement. And 9×19 mm is units of measurement. So it should be write leaving space between the words. 9×19mm is wrong and 9×19 mm is right.--777sms (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to cartridge naming conventions, the correct title would be 9x19mm, not 9x19 mm. This has been discussed in detail by the related projects; that is why all cartridge articles on Wikipedia use that format. ROG5728 (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the related projects?--777sms (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WT:GUNS and WT:MILHIST. Feel free to open a discussion on one or both of those talk pages, but this has been discussed in the past and consensus was to leave the titles the way they are. ROG5728 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see. I'll open a discussion about this. --777sms (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#PP-2000 As you were involved in the dispute in question for a while, I felt it was important to list you as a invovled editor. 69.132.69.87 (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I commented at Talk:PP-2000. ROG5728 (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning to mention the use of the guns in their respective articles, but sought clarification. Only the Smith & Wesson Model 29 is described clearly enough to be wikilinked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of the descriptions you mentioned would be clear enough for a wikilink from the article on the shooting, at this point. Heckler & Koch has offered a number of different pistol models chambered for .45 ACP, so "Heckler & Koch .45" really could mean any one of those models. Similarly, Springfield Armory, Inc. has produced M1911 pistols chambered for 9mm, so there is no way of knowing whether the shooter used a 9mm 1911 pistol or a 9mm XD (HS2000) pistol. ROG5728 (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, are you confident that the .44 magnum wikilink is correct? This seems clear enough from the police statement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my initial assumption. I suppose it could have been a Model 329, but that is essentially a spinoff of the Model 29 (an N-frame hunting handgun with the same caliber, capacity, etc.) so I think I would just leave that wikilink intact. ROG5728 (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits show your limited knowledge about European history. But it seems you are quite sure on your "personal" mission. Really ridiculous and others would describe it as poor as well. --High Contrast (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As was explained to you on the article talk page and in edit summaries, the Heckler & Koch MP5's correct place of origin is West Germany (1966), not Germany. That is common knowledge and is supported by countless reliable sources. Your edits were reverted because you changed correct information and made it incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you just "undo" my edit instead of fixing the language (sorry I'm not native)? APS (Full Auto) (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my edit summary, the grammar was extremely poor and the text you added wasn't really noteworthy anyway. It belongs in the 7.62x39mm article, not the AK-47 article. ROG5728 (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seems to be rigth here... OK, I'll edit ammo page. Thank you! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rog, I've opened a case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HappySadJunkie‎. Letting you know so you don't have to bother with one. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've just reverted edits by 99.249.16.62 from the above article. I've noticed that he has been making many edits to gun-related articles. As you seem to know a lot more than me about guns, could you check some of his edits if you have time? Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will do that. Thanks. ROG5728 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. SAR 80
2. SR 88
3. SAR 21
4. CIS 50MG
5. Ultimax 100

• Hi Roger, do you mind helping to perform peer review and article-class assessment on the abovementioned article pages? Thanks and cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, sorry for the late reply. I probably won't have time to do anything in-depth like that in the near future. ROG5728 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate the help you gave on the RPG-7 article. It is touches like that, that make Wiki all worthwhile. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem. ROG5728 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respect! Irondome (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wise corrections to this page. The article is long out of date, would you have the expertise required to bring up to date? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will see what I can do. ROG5728 (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up the Galil edit Irondome (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem. ROG5728 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ROG, I've seen that you have written about the absence of feed ramp in the Five-seven. I've added a mention of the beveled chamber (not sure if I phrased it correctly), but a picture showing that beveled chamber would be great (for the feed ramp article too), if you happen to have the occasion to take one. The RedBurn (ϕ) 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll see if I can do that sometime. Thanks for the input. ROG5728 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China Military Police Special Services Company just uses airsoft guns for training, not real guns.

Look this, It also marked "CA" (Hongkong Manufacturer).--118.171.63.247 (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not prefer them even if they are noteworthy? --JohnAndersonian (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see my response on the talk page at IMI Negev. ROG5728 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I wanted to apologize for incorrectly "fixing" the FN CAL page. I wasn't just trying to go through and point out that nothing was cited. I was actually trying to say "here are specific things that need citations". In the future though, I will just place the template at the top of the page. Sorry about that. Happy Holidays! --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no worries. I went ahead and tagged the article for cleanup. Happy holidays to you, too! ROG5728 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Firearms, by the way! Thank you for your contributions. Keep up the good work. ROG5728 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get that it is an EU weapon and that SI units should be first but I did a lot more than just switch the order of the units. I added a lot more information. Is there a reason you undid all of it? --Zackmann08 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my mistake. I just noticed you added PS90 specs to the table. Feel free to restore those. Your edits did remove the width and height of the P90, though, and those specs should be kept. ROG5728 (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah gotcha. Done and done. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the table includes PS90 specs, it might be worth adding an SS195 muzzle velocity figure for the PS90 to the main infobox too. That can be find further down the page, in the PS90 section. ROG5728 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for the messages above. For some reason I had un-followed your page so I didn't see them until just now. I'm glad I could help out. I also wanted to ask you a favor. I am in the midst of revamping all the Remington Arms pages. Some of them only need a little work while others need a complete overhaul. I wanted to see if you would mind helping me out? Mainly it would just be nice to have a second set of eyes read the pages to check for typos. But also if you have any sources that I didn't find that'd be awesome. I'm sure you have other stuff to do besides just cleaning up after me but it'd be nice to work together. :-) Anyway, happy holidays! --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't usually do a lot of editing on those articles (aside from Remington 870) but I'll see what I can do. ROG5728 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any help is appreciated! You can see my "todo" list here. --Zackmann08 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only opposing arguments made on the talk page were arguments by assertion which is a Logical fallacy. If you have any other arguments I would be happy to hear them. Oh and please stop complaining about my ignoring WP:GUNS. Given the project coordinator's behavior it is somewhat unreasonable to expect me to pay much attention to it.©Geni 01:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of 'massacre':

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/massacre

1. The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the norms of civilized people.

The definition of 'shooting':

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shooting

1. An instance of shooting (a person) with a gun. Police are hunting the people who carried out the shootings last week.

What happened at Sandy Hook School better fits the definition of a massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.13.205 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but the article title at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting does not use that wording, so we should be consistent with the title there (presumably the article title uses that wording because it is more commonly used). If you think it should be changed, feel free to propose that on the talk page at the main article. ROG5728 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Thank you for pointing this out to me and your proffered suggestion. I will cease editing the Bushmaster page to refer to this as a massacre until the referenced Sandy Hook page title reflects a like change.97.88.13.205 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased my comment made under "Interview with Wolf Blitzer on January 16, 2013" to:

During the interview Mr. Keene stated, "semi-automatic firearms have been around for a couple of hundred years", which is factually untrue. Semi automatic firearms were invented in the 1880's, becoming commonplace with law-enforcement during the 1920's.

This is verbatim from Mr. Keene. If you have a better place or format for reporting Mr. Keen's word, then feel free to suggest it. I am simply reporting a cogent fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Stark (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ROG, bear with me on edits on the various "gun related articles". I'm trying to make factual, but accurate and relevant statements that are directly referenced with actual RS, not some of the fluff (and/or clearly POV editorial) that's been used lately.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ROG5728 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The basketball term "alley-oop" comes to mind when I think about our efforts recently... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check this... Talk. I hope this person doesn't run afoul of someone with Admin rights, ouch.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith has its limits... I don't know what's more annoying, his edit warring and POV pushing on WP articles, or all the talk page spam from him. ROG5728 (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing prompted me to review Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I'm not one for "whistle blowing", but dang if its not starting to fit. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on Rjensen's talk page informing him he's broken the 3R rule. I haven't requested that he be blocked yet but he really hasn't made good faith to come to the talk. By my count he has revered this content 3 or 4 times, clearly beyong the 3R rule. I count you me and Scalhotrod as reverting him once and him reverting it back 3 times plus his original addition in 24 hours. He could be blocked but I don't want us to get dragged into that mess. If he persists without comming to the talk, let's request a block - or you can report him now - but let's not revert him anymore without admin help maybe Toddst1? - deal? if we edit war, Todd will block the entire lot of us and not lose one ounce of sleep over it. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your minor correction at Bushmaster Firearms, which prompted me to look at WP:Dates again. I am SO glad we are no longer linking dates for formatting. Guess I've been out of the loop a bit. :) Eaglizard (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! ROG5728 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Croatian Army and Georgian Land Forces equipment lists, it says they use the M40 sniper rifle. In the M40 page, I added a users section with them in it, but they were deleted saying M40s are made specifically for Marine snipers. They were not referenced in the equipment lists, so I just assumed. I could not find anything saying the armies use the M40, although an unsourced paragraph in Military history of Georgia says Georgian soldiers trained with U.S. Marines and bought weapons, with the M40 specifically mentioned. Is there anything you can find to prove or genuinely disprove if they use it or not? (America789 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I'm not aware of reliable sources supporting that info. Presumably the info was removed because Wikipedia can't use itself as a source. ROG5728 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what should I do about the rifle in their army equipment lists? Take them out or just leave them? America789 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would at least put a ^{[citation needed]} tag on that info. ROG5728 (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We both want to get the #'s right. The article, under thread "Casualties" says there were 43...but the refernce [[4]] that it uses says there were 5o. I dont want to war about this but the #.s don't jive. BTW...this is a different discrepancy than the one in the lead which I changed beck BEFORE finding this additional #'s glitch. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

First of all, the discrepancy in the lead is due to the fact that the shooter was included in the total number. So there were 30 wounded, but he directly wounded only 29 of them (his own wounds were not self-inflicted). The lead is talking about how many people the shooter wounded directly, so he shouldn't be included in that number. As for the other source you cited that says 38 wounded, that is an old number that was later corrected (to 30). The correction was documented somewhere in the article, but the link is probably dead now. ROG5728 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this reference for a better explanation. ROG5728 (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rog. I'm working on improving the Active shooter article (in a sandbox). I was gathering incident reports and noticed that the Fort Hood article and the references didnt equate. I see now that an active conversation is ongoing to resolve the casualties quandry. I'll stay out of it. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See File:MLI-84M Military Parade on December the 1st 2009.jpg, can you please tell me that you can easily identify the Spike (missile) (not the launcher, just the missile itself)? If not, why? Reason I'm asking this is due to some ignorant IP editor calling me names after I had removed it from the aforementioned article page; so a neutral third party input is greatly appreciated here, thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you removing that image. There is no missile identifiable in the picture and most editors probably wouldn't see any connection between that photo and the article. ROG5728 (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, and I've quoted my reason per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE before removing that image for the second time. Hope the ignorant one comes to his senses. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at Gun Control. The article does not appear to be in line with the rest of our gun articles. Lots of POV pushing. Some active discussion on the talk, some by me. thoughts, appreciated-Justanonymous (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Yes, the article is suffering from serious POV issues and needs a thorough cleanup. The wording isn't the only issue, the article also needs pro-gun viewpoints and information added to it to balance it. ROG5728 (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rog asyou noted, Stopyourbull WP:3RR has broken the 3R rule which is generally a bright red line when it comes to Wikipedia sanctions and is considered Edit warring WP:WAR. I understand that this is a difficult subject but we need consensus here not a war on the article. I offered him an opportunity to revert himself and restore the text and come to the talk to discuss consensus or I will have to submit the violation for action by administrators. He's not being very reasonable. I left a message on his page informing him of the violation and here just as a triple check although I saw that you informed him. Let's not get blocked. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I'm not planning on going beyond my 2 reverts on that. I do think his actions need to be reported. Please note I opened a talk page discussion before it turned into an all out edit war, and I don't think that was made very clear in the message you left for the admin (there's not a whole lot I can do if StopYourBull won't even discuss the content with me). ROG5728 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave an update so the admin knows regarding you having opened a discussion in the talk page. I don't know Kafziel and I picked him because I don't know him, I had seen a good ruling on him once so I thought I'd go that route. It's more objective that way all around vs calling in someone I know. Hope that's ok. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user Shkvoz has uploaded a Galil image with the Caption "An Arab Galil". Obviously this is patent nonsense. I assume the user is attempting to make some political point. Its highly politically loaded as the lead image in the article anyway. I have amended pic title to "A Galil rifle". Please can you keep an eye out or comment via my page? Seems a bit odd. A plundered Galil rifle I assume? I am attempting to revert the entire image but with no success as my image reversion doesnt seem to be taking. Ive left a message on the relevant user page. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll keep an eye on the article. It looks like that editor is probably a sock of this person, who has been randomly changing infobox image properties and making them incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Just showing appreciation for all of your "weasel word" hunting lately...! Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! ROG5728 (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its well deserved and overdue! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rog, as you are keenly aware, many of the gun and related articles are a mess. POV pushing, inconsistency, factual inaccuracy, lousy or no references, et. al. I've corresponded with the Coordinator of the Firearm Project to use the page to organize the overall efforts to clean up these articles and I'm hoping you'll be interested in joining in.

How this started was with a comparison of the Gun and Firearm articles and some of their derivatives like Gun#History, Firearm#History, History of the firearm, History of gunpowder, Gun powder, etc. There is no consistency in the use of definitions, references, or even entire History sections from article to article.

I'm going to ask others for their assistance, some of the usual suspects from the Sandy Hook, NRA, Wayne LaPierre articles and such. For the time being, we have the run of the Firearm Project page. Any effort you can contribute, however big or small, will be appreciated.

Please feel free to spread the word to others. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend is back at SWAT. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He earned himself a block. Things should quiet down for now. ROG5728 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi~! Could you take a look at the page's history? You'll noticed that there's a kind of slow edit war going on revolving around the infobox image and I've been trying to bring a better quality photo into the fray but 2 other bozos are stirring the water for their own reasons without understanding why a clear photo of the subject that's being illustrated and of higher resolution is way better than one with some much clutter or being of lower resolution quality. Mind providing me your opinion here, or if need be on the discussion page? Thanks and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll take a look. ROG5728 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I prefer to use images with neutral (or semi-neutral) backgrounds, if possible, but I haven't looked at the MOS recently to see what is actually recommended. In this case, it seems like there are MP5 images at commons that are superior to either of the two images being fought over right now. ROG5728 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave1185: If you're going to call me names, at least inform me.

ROG5728: Which image would you prefer be in the infobox? I only thought the one that's currently there should be there because it shows the gun's retractable buttstock, which is a good thing. TCN7JM 10:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not this one? It's less grainy than the current image, and it's facing left, so it should make both sides happy. It doesn't have the buttstock retracted, but I think it still gives a pretty good idea of what an MP5 looks like. ROG5728 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I will not object, as I agree that that is a good image, I must wonder why it matters that the image faces to the left. TCN7JM 20:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The direction doesn't matter to me, but that image might be a good compromise; it seems like a clearer image anyway. ROG5728 (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How can those two images (File:MP5.jpg@1,200 × 504 pixels & File:Hkmp5count-terr-wiki.jpg@500 × 267 pixels), which are both of a much lower resolution than the one I've been reverting to, be any better than (File:MP5 in U.S. Ordnance Museum.jpg@2,048 × 1,536 pixels)? Anyway, it's the weekend, I'm not going spoil it by hunkering down to the levels of them trollish bozos. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ROG5728, could you make a photo of a disassembled FN Five-seveN USG on a white background and a neat clear photo of Five-seveN with Viridian X5L Gen. 2? Tekogi (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually have a lot of new high quality Five-seveN and PS90 photos but I haven't had a chance to post them yet. ROG5728 (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That the MP40 was used in USCG service post-war. It has appeared on users in the MP40 article. I have tagged it dubious. Have you ever heard of this? Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, never heard of that. A lot of fake info pops up in the users sections so it's good to keep an eye on that. ROG5728 (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting. Thanks for input. Cheers Irondome (talk)

Hi, I spend most of the time with this account on hr.wiki, which I also sometimes edit. But the thing is: I really need a good argument for correct naming of the cartridges there without space (e.g. admins always like to write "9×19 mm" instead of "9×19mm"), I was hoping if you could give a little bit more info than you did there on the talk page of 9×19mm Parabellum article. Thanks anyways. Tekogi (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the previous discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Firearms/Archive 7#Cartridge Naming Convention might be helpful to you. There were also some discussions about this at WT:MOSNUM awhile back, but I can't find them anymore. There are a number of reasons we don't use a space in the cartridge name, one of them being that the manufacturers themselves usually don't use a space. ROG5728 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits at Remington Model 870 appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 216.81.81.80 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Remington Model_870#Washington_Navy_Yard_Massacre". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you commented on the Lightbreather ANI discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_now_deleting.2Faltering_talk-page_comments --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are WP: POV Railroad tactics. I didn't see it a few weeks ago first but the evidence is there. Already Anythingyouwant is out - his voice silenced. That's a huge win for the other side.

If we look at the editors involved we have a mix of some very senior editors with extensive battleground experience along with some editors have been with Wikipedia for scarcely six months yet are both experts at our policies and have already been brought to ANI accused of disruptive behavior. When we get to ANI, far too often, the result is non-consensus and the behavior is excused....the claim is that the behavior is normal on contentious pages .... they're even defended by admins! Look at the earlier MilesMoney entry and the non-consensus reached and the goethean ANI results.

I wonder if I would receive the same reception here if I started dropping profanity laden commentary throughout Wikipedia and started being disruptive on other pages....probably not.

What are we to make of this? I wouldn't be surprised if there's a sockpuppet in there. I wouldn't be surprised if they're coordinating via personal e-mail and their distros might have admins on there. We're entirely unprepapred for this kind of battleground. We're just a bunch of good guys who might have long edit histories here but we're entirely inexperienced in this type of war. I'm a far cry from being a pro at Wikilawyering, ANI, RSN, and all these other forums. I've only posted there a couple of times and probably did it wrong. I don't even have an admin to lean on that would defend me. These guys are organized, coordinated, and they know what they're doing.

Or maybe our arguments are weak and we're wrong??? and I'm just seeing ghosts where there are none? Can that be possible? -Justanonymous (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about sockpuppetry, but I can say that the anti-gun editors on Wikipedia are definitely more numerous (and usually a lot more tendentious). Someone with persistent bad behavior and a massive block history like Andy's shouldn't be allowed to stick around here and abuse other editors. I agree that the folks at ANI have also been extremely unhelpful and irrational in their approach to this, and I don't doubt it's directly related to their personal stances on the topic of gun control. It's a heated topic and just about everyone has a bias one way or the other. But the idea that we shouldn't report someone for personal attacks, just because they're part of an ongoing content dispute, is absurd and it flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. ROG5728 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you're right, any one of us would have been swiftly blocked for making those kinds of base personal attacks. Look at how quickly they blocked Gaijin42 for a supposed "personal attack" when it actually turned out that Andy was deliberately misrepresenting what Gaijin had said. Funny how no one there at ANI accused Andy of using ANI to his advantage, even though it was right in the middle of this same content dispute, and resulted in an opposing editor mistakenly being blocked for a comment that was not in fact a personal attack. ROG5728 (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Andy's ANI? I can't find a link. It didn't display properly on my Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's already been closed out. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, what?!? Wow...! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a quick thought and I'm asking because I've seen it mentioned elsewhere and apparently its apparently pretty damning when collected, but has anyone put together an "Andy's Greatest Hits" list of the various insults, profanity, and other demeaning comments he's made? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would only work in a level playing field. The complaints of goethean, Milesmoney and Andythegrump have been raised to ani recently by many parties in other pages aside from our little group (the firearms guys) and they've all been closed without any action so this is well beyond the firearms guys. Look at the histories at ANI. By contrast, Gaijin42 was censured almost immediately when one editor misrepresented Gaijin's comments.....imagine that, just a whiff of impropriety got him blocked and not even an apology when the truth came out...Yet there are lists of inappropriate actions on these editors on multiple disparate articles and nothing/zilch/nada. It's pretty plain that the activities of these editors are condoned and supported by at least some tribe out there. Some admins have said as much in the ANIs. Policies are irrelevant for them at this point and lists of grievances are similarly pretty useless in my opinion. These are just the stormtroopers (by that I mean the front line Battleground editors that know how to fight the close in dirty fight, they don't mind getting bruised a bit and they're used to this, they know how to navigate this), there are other silent partners out there too. I have little confidence that we are dealing with a level playing field. The winds have changed gents and we're behind the forest fire line. Maybe some admin that was keeping the balance retired or took a break, I don't know. Something. If we keep falling for the baiting because that is what they're doing, they're going to get dirt on us and they'll get us topic banned or worse. This is a wide open forum gents and anybody can read this so I hope I'm not crossing over some invisible line that'll get me blocked. You gents do great work on firearms articles but I'm worried in this political arena. This all just seems too coordinated and I don't want us blocked or our reputations tarnished. Just don't respond on the talks to the baiting at all by these guys - these are experts at misrepresentation. Please be careful out there. Keep your noses clean. Just follow the policies. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of level playing field, my original thought appears to have been correct. ROG5728 (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Wikipedia just have elections for some of the higher arbitration forums? Maybe that's what's causing all of this. I do notice that some editors are just saying, "don't like it, report me." So maybe that's part of what's going on? I don't know. It does feel that the winds have changed. Maybe some people got elected who didn't like the way things were being run around here...-Justanonymous (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year. I do notice that one of the editors appears to have gotten themselves in trouble for harassment on another page and they might block him/her so maybe the machine is working.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these edits by the anonymous editor seem like just a way to get the advertising spam into the article but I also have seen firsthand how hard it is to get sources that are not trying to sell product for these articles. What's your opinion on this users additions? They seem to be trying to learn the ropes. Alatari (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the sources he's using are questionable, but at this point there's no way of knowing if it's intentional or not. I guess we will just have to assume good faith and see how this develops. Having product links in an article is probably better than having no sources of any kind, I guess. I'm not sure if he pays attention to his talk page, but it might be worth dropping him a message letting him know product links are not ideal sources and could get him in trouble for spamming. ROG5728 (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an American gun.

It’s made by an American manufacturer.

It shoots an American round.

It’s intended for the American civilian market.

Please read WP:UNITS then explain to me why fps needs to be in parenthesis. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted that change because you removed the m/s number altogether. It's fine to list ft/s first since it's a US-focused article, but don't remove the m/s number completely. Both should be included. Thanks. ROG5728 (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me at that other place where we talked. Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. ROG5728 (talk)

Can I re-include the Virginia State Police as a user on the SIG Sauer P226 page for the SIG Sauer P229 DAK .357 SIG? L.J. Tibbs (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link: [5]. It is under the Cartridge Details heading. L.J. Tibbs (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free to add that, along with the source. ROG5728 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]