Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:39, 5 July 2009

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2

User talk templates

from Talk:Firearm - an explanation of your block, etc

For the record, my account of my actions is as follows:

1. I responded to an Incidents noticeboard thread by reviewing the talk page, user contributions, user talk pages, and block logs of the editors involved. One editor had a history of edit warring, for which they had received several blocks. The other editor had a clean block log and no such history.
2. I blocked the editor with prior history, and issued a final warning to the other.
3. I made two mistakes: the editor who was blocked was only blocked for 48 hours, despite previously having been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring, implying that a 3-day block might have been more appropriate; conversely, in warning the other editor I mistakenly stated that they had "clearly violated WP:3RR" when their reverts had actually taken place over more than 24 hours.
4. I reported my admin actions at ANI, where they caused neither surprise nor criticism.
5. I then decided to respond to the request for outside input. This input was based on a very straightforward interpretation of the word "firearm", specifically the fact that the word "arm" in this context means "weapon".

My administrative action was performed as an uninvolved admin - please read up on that. If after doing so, you still believe that I have acted improperly, then I urge you to post at the admins' noticeboard requesting review.

But a word of warning. It seems to me that you need to make a case that my interpretation in #5 prevents me from acting as an administrator towards you. Your problem is that you can't really connect the two aspects of my conduct - my opinion that firearms are essentially weapons, and my admin actions against disruptive editors - without implying that I am on some kind of mission to repress the view that firearms are tools that are used as weapons, and that I have so little integrity that I would be willing to use admin tools to further that campaign. I'm sure you're aware of our policy on personal attacks, and that you have quite a high profile right now at the admin noticeboards. Considering these factors, and the simplicity of the counter-argument that you're up against (sour grapes from a blocked editor), you might want to just let this issue drop. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy and meaningless treatise on why you thought you were justified. The facts are that you were an interested party to the argument and you banned somebody who disagreed with you. You did not recuse yourself from either the admin actions or the argument in question. In the business or political world, this would be unethical and possibly illegal. On Misplaced Pages, it's just plain rotten. I am really wondering why you came here to try to explain yourself. Did you ask the admin community if your actions were justified or did you come up with this all on your own? Notice that I didn't take the time to "report" you or take any action against you. Not going to lower myself to your level, bud. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here to explain what happened because that's expected, when editors raise a complaint about admin conduct. On reflection I probably should have avoided communicating with you - any idiot could have predicted that the discussion wouldn't end with you happy to've been blocked - and since this attempt seems to have been entirely unproductive I can only apologise for any stress caused. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No stress, but I doubt you're worried about that. I'm trying to impart that you acted unethically. Though you might not realize it, your actions were "unfair" if you'll allow me to use words you might understand. You might keep plugging along believing that your actions were above board because you justify it some way internally. The reason I'm spending my time explaining it is because I truly believe that you DON'T realize it and I might actually convince you. So, if you're reading this, when you take authoritative actions that you or your arguments benefit from, then you are acting unethcially. If you act in one realm, taking action in the other realm is a conflict of interests. If you are interested that the outcome of the debate is one that agrees with you (You are), then you cannot in good faith ban me and further refuse to ban the other party whom you agree with. Crystal clear to me. Did you consult with anybody else on this one? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to try to point out what you see as unfairness on my part. Needless to say, I disagree with you on a couple of points...

You've said that I or my arguments have benefitted from my admin actions. But they haven't. The edit war was over whether the Talk page section heading should be "Regarding the attempted POV change in the lede to state that a firearm is a "tool," not a weapon." or simply "Change in the lede to state that a firearm is a "tool," not a weapon." and the last revert in this edit war was your revert to your preferred form of words. You won your edit war. I deliberately avoided getting involved in that content dispute. Instead, my admin actions had the effect of stopping the disruption.

The only effect that my personal opinions had on my actions was to push me towards sanctioning the editors rather than protecting the page, since I strongly felt that this was a silly issue to be edit warring over. Even so, I think any reasonable admin would have made the same decision, considering the ongoing talk page discussion over actual article content, and protecting the page would have prevented that - and, indeed, encouraged an edit war in the article itself.

The last question, I think, is whether I should have issued identical blocks to both parties(would this have been OK with you?) or whether I should have considered prior conduct and block logs. I think that in this regard I acted in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy in considering each editor's history. You'd been blocked three times for edit warring, and twice for personal attacks or harassment, whereas Theserialcomma had never been blocked and hadn't even been warned for edit warring before. The fact that they didn't revert again, despite being technically able to do so, shows that a block was not necessary.

Finally, I believe that Misplaced Pages would be harmed if we were to take the position that admins may only use their tools in cases where they have no opinion on any related content issues, political/religious/nationalistic questions, etc. Instead, I believe that admins should separate their personal opinions from their decisions, so that their administrative decisions are impartial. Needless to say, neither you nor I is capable of objectively determining whether I acted impartially in this particular incident. As such, I'm not sure how to productively continue this discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image Copyright

Hi, I uploaded the image of Sgt. Strank of Flags of our Fathers, is there anyway it can stay on the site without being considered "stolen"? I apoligize, I didn't mean to steal it (I simpley screencapped it from my DVD, since I'm uploading screencaps for www.imfdb.org now), but I have no idea how to fill out the copyright information. - Gunmaster45 (talk)

Well, the copyright holder has to give permission for the use of the photo on Misplaced Pages. There are tutorials on Misplaced Pages that explain how to do it. It's not too difficult, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I've reviewed the edits and believe I found what you might not have but what about the edit on Stoner 63..legit or no?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the M3 submachine gun thing. It wasn't my intention to change so dramatically. I just wanted to express my opinion since I once saw on the article that the M3 submachine gun was still used and it was used on Iraq. I am recent to Misplaced Pages and I'm still learning how to edit documents. Please don't ban me from editing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeekid (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not for expressing your opinion. The M3 was NOT in service with the United States for the Iraq war. Unless you bring references that say otherwise, I will continue to work to exclude your "opinion" as original research. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Found this. According to this page in WIKIPEDIA it said that the M3 subamachine gun was used until the mid-1990's by tank crews. Here's the link: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=142914.Also found this http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/M3-submachine-gun saying that in WIKIPEDIA before it said before that the M3 was used until the mid 1990's which proves the the military photos link.--Coffeekid (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was there, I know. We're not talking about the first Gulf war, we're talking about the invasion of Iraq in 2003. All the Grease Guns were in long-term storage by then. That's what the M4 is for now. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I figured it out that when Iraq started the M3 where replaced with the M4. If you want you can add those links to the M3 article or I could add them. --Coffeekid (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Calibre/Caliber

In reference to the C96 article, it's not me changing the spelling to a "non-standard" version, it's me, as the person who wrote most of the article, reverting an un-necessary change to an American spelling. Also, the C96 is an Imperial topic; Churchill carried one and they were used by British officers during the Boer War, World War I, and various "Little Wars" fought around that time. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill carried a Tommy Gun too, that doesn't mean it's any more imperial than the next one. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

He posed for a photograph with one. He didn't actually carry one into combat the way he (and T.E. Lawrence) carried C96s. At any rate, the point is that the article was already using the British spelling and there's no reason to arbitrarily change it to the US one. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't know it was already limey-spelled. Funny how the Americans speak better English than the English. Spell better too. ;-) --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, leaving out the letter "U" from certain words does make it a little easier for you. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for CopyVio - File:USAssaultRifleWP.jpg

Here is some more ammo for your side. Note that three of the loads in question (M995, Mk 262, and 6.8mm SPC) did not exist at the time cited for the drawing (1990). This looks more like the work of Dr. Gary K. Roberts. It is hard to say whether this was the product of his work with the US military, a civilian agency, or both. If you'd like, I'll contact Dr. Roberts for confirmation. --D.E. Watters (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The other photo with "Direct Impingement" was from an Army Times article... that was easy to find as I remember exactly where I had seen it before. I don't know how long this editor will last. It seems he's got some axe to grind but if he'd just play by the rules, cooler-headed editors and the facts will eventually prevail. Heck, we might even agree with his points. We'll see. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:RussianWP.jpg also looks like something Dr. Roberts put together, although it may contain material from Dr. Fackler. I'm pretty certain that Dr. Roberts used both pictures in his 2008 NDIA Small Arms briefing, and has posted them on several firearms forums. As for the Army Times picture, most folks don't realize that the publication is a civilian operation. It is owned by Gannett, the same folks who put out USA Today. --D.E. Watters (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Userpage

For creating a userpage that made me smile I'd like to present you with a Userpage Barnstar. Peace the old fashioned way --Ndunruh (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Assault weapon discussion edits

Greetings, Nukes4Tots. Thanks for changing the section heading on the project discussion page to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Firearms#Assault Weapon article mistakes. That's not only more civil that than the previous title, it's also more descriptive. I noticed that you also changed the original poster's comments, to be less impolite. While I'm a strong advocate of civility and politeness on Misplaced Pages, it is against guidelines to change another editor's comments, except in a few special cases. Your intention was good, but the guideline is there to preserve the integrity of talk page discussions. So, I think it would be appropriate to undo those changes, while leaving the new section header the way it is now. For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. (If you reply here, I will see what you say.) — Mudwater 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"P.S." See also: Misplaced Pages:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments, where it says, "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page." — Mudwater 21:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mudwater, while I didn't read the policy, I do believe it was obvious trolling and therefore I believe I was justified (if after the fact) in doing so. Just got under my skin seeing hatred pop up on my watchlist every time somebody responded. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Need Help

Yo Nukes!! Whats up?? Hey Im not here to accuse you of something. Hey I need some help can you tell me some old weapons like dating back to WW1 or before that are still used? Its for a firearms paper since you know a lot about weapons I came here to see if you would help me. Thanks --Coffeekid (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Enfield No1 Mk3, Colt M1911, Mauser 98. That's about it. M1903 Springfield still used for ceremonies and many old bolt actions see service as sniper weapons or training arms. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for accusing you. I really thought about what you said and maybe you were right.--Coffeekid (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

APIB

Nukes4Tots, stop being so bone-headed. It seems evident from your other comments that you have a copy of Chinn's work. I suggest that you actually read the chapter describing API blowback; I have given volume (IV) and pages (29-42). Granted, this part is a bit complex, as it contains the mathematical equations describing the APIB firing cycle, but you'll find that it is pretty clear overall.

The description of APIB on which you are insisting applies to submachineguns only, which can get away with this version because they fire low-pressure ammunition. But it does not cover a large group of historically important APIB guns (see cannon family), and more pointedly, does not even describe Becker's original design correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutatis Mutandis (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself, dumbshit. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have left such a hostile comment on my talk page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)