User talk:Nukes4Tots

Archives

User NewYorkCityPhilantropy

I believe those edits are actually quite good for a novice editor. I've written entire articles without a single reference, sometimes, an unreferenced something is better than nothing. This particular user's edits seem to be correct with regards to the .40 S&W version and the QA trigger having owned the type. Koalorka (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that Josh Woolensumthin fellow? He started his career by uploading obviously pirated images and then told me off when I warned him. Yeah, I came down on him. I'm here to improve gun articles, not form alliances or deal with vaginal drama. Koalorka (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. The reason I reverted them was mostly because of the statement, "It should be noted." That really gets under my skin. Think, "It goes without stating" or the same such. Yes, I've been acused of being abrasive, however with what project members have I quarreled? I don't recall any. As I've stated numerous times before, it's all 1's and 0's to me although I'll admit that sometimes editors get tedious. I'd appreciate the constructive criticism. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misread one of your comments, disregard, carry on. Koalorka (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Nukes4Tots

This is actually my first contribution to wikipedia and I am still learning the very basics of how it works. To put your mind to rest, I found and added references which supported the statements I added (there is actually a lot more information on that site which can be added, and I will do so later). As far as the comment regarding the function of the QA trigger, I am unable to find a reference to what I am saying. Regardless, what I am stating is fact, as you know, and I feel that it is essential that this information be included on this wiki page. All other information on the page leads the reader to believe that the gun is only cocked when the striker is protruding from the slide, which is not true on the QA variant. This can lead to mishandling of the firearm by an inexperienced user, and that can obviously lead to injury or death. I hope that you agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewYorkCityPhilanthropy (talk • contribs) 03:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read-up on signing your posts. I appreciate your good faith and I apologize if my response is curt. The main reason for my reverting your addition was that you provided neither a reference nor did you put an edit comment. If the information is a fact, that's one thing, but Wikipedia does not deal in facts, they deal in Verifiability. Read WP:Verify. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sten gun

I modified the page because I thought that:

The Mark I was a more finely finished weapon with a wooden foregrip and handle; some later versions were not quite as spartan.

is confusing at the very least. Looking at the later versions of the sten on the page seems to indicate that subsequent mods were introduced to simplify the gun, thus making it MORE spartan. I also got this on my watchlist page:

(diff) (hist) . . Sten submachine gun‎; 03:18 . . (+13) . . Nukes4Tots (Talk | contribs) (does not mean the same thing and ALL later variants were more spartan)

so what's going on? I'm new to this and don't know who changed the page or what your actions actually were.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. You did the right thing, but I misread your comments. I've changed it back. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate!Brutaldeluxe (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I saw a thread about you on the admins incidents noticeboard with links to...well lets just say dirt lol. You have some history, though you certainly helped get M249 to FA (It hasn't been promoted yet but it will pass lol) Patton^t/c 23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I believe I've done yeoman's work on the Glock pistol article and to have a wikilawyer come in and pick fights with everybody over everything isn't going to pass without a fight on my part. If you're in it to improve articles, I'll generally be right next to you. If you're in it for the drama, I'll work just as hard again' ya. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remington Model 770

Know anything about this model? An IP anon is putting a bunch of OR into the article, and I am not very knowledgeable on this model. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not the best person to edit it, but I did clean it up some and warned him. I don't much care for the 710 or 770 and wouldn't buy them even if I need a gun and didn't have more money. I'd buy used first. Bolt is sticky, poorly finished, odd looking, etc. It is just as accurate, though, and affordable as well as easy to get into without the trouble of mounting a scope.

Thanks! Yaf (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bushmaster M17S

You wholly removed the comment I added to this page. I'm unclear why you did that. What I added is a reasonable description of what was on the M17S that I own.

Can you at least explain what you feel was wrong with it? I can provide pictures if that would help. Lagaman (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my edit comment. It represents Original Research and you provided no reference. If it were referenced and verifiable, it would still need to be notable. Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be handy if you'd take the time to discuss prior to just removing what you don't like. I can provide reference, but you gave me no opportunity to do so, and neither did you state that was the rationale for removing the first edit. The discussion page is supposed to be for this kind of thing... Lagaman (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment when I reverted it was, "Not true as written". Which was good enough to cover my edit. I'll say that with thousands of edits I perform, I only start discussions on the ones I'm unsure about. If I'm sure, I provide a curt reason and move on to the next article. I don't have time to debate each and every edit. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I'm totally confused. I did a single revert, which you counted as three. I also provided a reference for that edit, and you just flatly removed my comment, and the reference. By my count, you're at two reverts, while I'm at one. Is there something factually flawed with what I provided or the reference, or are you trying to make this into a factless argument? Lagaman (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone to the Editor assistance/Requests page about this, and initiated a discussion on the talk page. Let's please continue the discussion there. Lagaman (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#unintended_edit_war_on_the_Bushmaster_M17S_page, this is a good faith edit that may need rewording but has a source. Contributor is making every effort to do it correctly and avoid a war over it. Discussion on it should take place on article talk. If the editor has requested discussion, you should enagage - "If I'm sure, I provide a curt reason and move on to the next article" is not constructive, this project is built on discussion. Just because you are sure does not mean you are right. Mfield (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really misjudged Lagaman. After, like, three edits he has the skill to report my lack of a complete and thorough explanation of each and every edit in a request for assistance. I suspect that he is not new. Moving on, I've explained myself in detail now. Unfortunately, in addition to notability, it is a highly technical and obscure statement that is nearly verbatim from the reference, therefore copyvio as well. I don't think it says anything that needs to be said. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bushmaster M17S. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.