User talk:ROG5728

I actively revert vandalism and other edits that are not in accordance with certain Wikipedia policies. Before leaving me a comment, please see the following pages:

• Civility
• Neutral point of view
• Original research

• Vandalism
• Verifiability
• WikiProject Firearms guidelines

---

Format Question...

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)

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)

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

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

Reported 85.100.79.99 for "silahgalerisi" spam

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)

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

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)

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

Suggestion for the FN FAL article: proposed split/spinoff article

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)

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)

Heckler & Koch HK21

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• @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)

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)

• (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)

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)

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)

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)

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