Jump to content

User talk:Koalorka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.34.68.186 (talk) at 06:03, 22 April 2009 (→‎Flag icons). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Notice regarding conversations.
In an effort to keep conversations together, if you begin a conversation on this page, I will usually respond here. If I left you a message, I added your discussion page to my watchlist so I'll know when you respond there.
Leave a new message.

“Chocolate sprinkles”

I just wanted to say, that was a pretty good comment. Really made the point.71.34.68.186 (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)A. REDDSON[reply]

Flag icons

Hi. I disagree that names of countries need icons next to them. MOSICON says they should “help the reader rather than decorate,” and specifically‘’’ to “provide additional essential information or needed illustration”.

But it's good that this is coming up. The guideline is not specific enough, and both my interpretation and yours may be valid ones. I'd like to settle this question once and for all, so we can stop revert-warring over this. We need to get the community to form a consensus, either about this type of use of icons in general, or this specific application of them in infoboxes. I've started a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Flag icons guidelines. Please let's discuss there. —Michael Z. 2008-12-12 17:01 z

Linking complete nouns

Nitpicky, but I don't see how this “fixes” the links. Sentences are easier to read when noun phrases are linked as a unit, as T-34 medium tank, rather than separating their proper names as if they were isolated adjectives, like T-34 medium tank. See also WP:R#NOTBROKEN. —Michael Z. 2009-02-10 22:17 z

Hello.

Hello. I hope I am not disturbing you but I wanted to ask you why my images of firearms keep getting reverted. Do they not meet the Wikipedia standards somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominick1283 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Josh, they don't meed Wikipedia standards, because they are not your images. Also, sock-puppetry is a serious offense. Koalorka (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing me for a person I do not know!!! I AM NOT THIS PERSON!!! It makes no difference. You guys won't listen anyway. I'll just go kill my self then. Will that please you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominick1283 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koalorka, I know you were interested in this. You might have missed it since the pot was poisoned and the first investigation was reported, I resubmitted and both Dominick1283 and the Sock IP were banned indefinitely. See here: [1] Thanks for your efforts on this one. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Brick / Nukes4Tots / Asams10 sockpuppetry

thank you for notifying Asams10. you could notify Nukes4Tots too, if you wish. By the way, you should check the newest evidence against Nukes4Tots before calling me names like 'agitator'. it's really uncalled for, especially given the evidence i've presented Theserialcomma (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on Nukes, but attempting to implicate another seemingly randomn editor in your assault on the WP:Firearms community betrays your malevolence. Therefore, agitator is an accurate description, your activities would best be described as pervasive vagrancy. You've engaged in a senseless match of wit with 5 or so editors only to achieve absolutely nothing and withdraw in somekind of confused defiance. You then stalked everyone that contested your silliness. If you're not trolling, I really have to question your intelligence. Koalorka (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we'll see how random he is after i submit the rest of the evidence, then you can apologize for being rude and failing to assume good faith Theserialcomma (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to assume my good faith is bad faith. Koalorka (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

signature

For some reason a edit that you apparently made to Talk:RK 95 TP says I made it. do you know why that is?

You might want to start signning your posts if you want any sort of response. I just noticed that the comments were made a year ago. How bizarre of you to bring it up now... Koalorka (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

Sorry, my bad. I didn't notice you were actively engaged in a rewrite. I'll hold off. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

threats of physical violence

your 'joke' about drilling a hole in my skull read like a threat of physical violence to me. i removed it once and you added it back. i ask that you remove it yourself, or i will report you for threatening physical violence. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the discretion of the Arbitration Commitee that will determine if the procedure is to be done or not. Kidding aside, you chose to interpret it as a threat, which it clearly isn't, so if you have a problem with it, go cry to an admin again. And don't ever modify or remove my comments again, no matter what the content. Koalorka (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several of your recent comments, including the one cited above, are clearly incivil. If you persist in leaving veiled personal attacks like this, you may in the future be blocked for this behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, a thread to discuss this comment, and others, has been started at WP:ANI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Koalorka, please take this conversation seriously. They threatened to slap me with a trout: [2]. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Based on this edit [3] and prior warnings to stop this sort of personal attack, I have blocked you for a few days. Please comment on the content, not the editors. You seem interested in pushing the boundaries and testing to find how much you can get away with. Well, you won't get away with this sort of thing. Please cease this. If you continue this when the block expires, you will be blocked again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty cool story bro. Koalorka (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might note that this resulted from canvassing, not from this particular admin keepin an eye on you. Check the following diff if you haven't seen it already; [4]. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why naturally, it was expected of the troll. What I didn't expect was the surprisingly punitive response from the apparently malleable and novice admin that blocked me. If I cared enough, I would probably report both, but I couldn't be bothered, I don't suffer from vaginitis. Someone does however need to ventilate the pervasive odor of troll that lingers over the project and threatens to halt any further progress. Koalorka (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, this conversation is being watched, however it was suggested that if Theserialcomma has been engaging in a disruptive pattern of behavior, that behavior may be addressed directly through the noticeboards. Of course, that would mean dozens of difs to show the dozens of rules he's violated in both spirit (3RR, Edit Warring) and fact, Hounding, Trolling, Forum Shopping, etc. It seems that there is a tendancy among those that responded to this ANI to believe that TSC has been engaging in disruptive behavior. I'd say something else, but I think that would be considered a personal attack in the current atmosphere. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koalorka, ranting on about it and making personal attacks is what people with vaginanitis do. Egos will get you nowhere here. Simply saying sorry and forgetting it is the way forward; it's quite hard to do though, isn't it? That's because it takes a real man to do it, not some pussy who just keeps smacking a dead horse.--Your friend and fellow firearms editor, Pattont/c 19:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truly inspiring. Who are you and where's my apology then? Koalorka (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for ongoing behavior

I value your contributions to Wikipedia firearms articles a lot. I understand about the frustration you're seeing with many editors who are less informed, or who vandalize the articles.

However, you've pushing too far and abusing our policy on editing in a civil manner and not making personal attacks. You just got blocked for one set of that, and yet are right back with things like this edit summary where you refer to an anon editor who vandalized as "intellectually challenged".

There's no need to call people names. They vandalized - note the vandalism and correct it. Insulting them or being nasty to them undermine Wikipedia's community and are destructive to the project. That's why we have policies against doing that.

Please stop it with the abusive behavior against others. You've done this to a lesser extent for a long time. We're getting more strict about the policy over the last couple of months, and you have at the same time gotten somewhat nastier in your comments. That's terrible timing. You need to calm down and edit in a more cooperative and friendly manner - both in comments on wiki and edit summaries. If you keep pushing buttons and abusing people then I or other admins will be forced to block again. I don't want to do that - you do a tremendous amount of good work on the wiki. However, the abusive behavior is destructive too, and the community has decided that enough is enough.

Please chose moderating your behavior over being forced to leave.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German machineguns

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my Austrian police entry with the Glock page?

I live here so I think I should know quite a bit better than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.82.61 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for your claim. Koalorka (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here... http://www.polizeisammler.de/berichte/austria/2005/neueuniform-fahrzeuge.jpg clearly visible is the polymer grip of the Glock. No other pistol has a grip like that. They are produced here in Austria anyway, so why would they use something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.82.61 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not question the fact, I am simply asking your for a proper reference. A Photograph is not a proper reference. Möglicherweise verstehen Sie mich besser auf englisch? Koalorka (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See I can give you 100s of references, but the "proper" ones are in German anyway. http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg15-e.htm http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-926.html http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/glock17.htm We could also just accept the fact that it is like that and leave it in there. You need references for statements, not obvious things. Like if I said, the president had an affair with Michael Jackson, that would need a reference. There is no need for you to play the wiki police if the things that are put in here are common knowledge among people who live in that country and there is no doubt it is that way. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The president had an affair with Michael Jackson? Creepy. Actually, there is a reason to doubt entries. It is because the vast majority of them are not verifiable. Wikipedia is not about fact, it is about verifiability. I do not find it dubious at all that the federal police in Austria would use the Glock. So, produce a reference of some sort and re-insert it. It's that simple. If it's not verifiable, it doesn't need to be there. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about INFORMATION. And information, which is common knowledge doesn't need further "proof". Sorry, some people just seem to build their ego on being the Wiki GeStaPo in here, it's ridiculous. (talk)

Oh and btw... I can also just link to the German Wikipedia if you two Officers would like that... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespolizei_(%C3%96sterreich) Oh.... what's this? The Glock it is... Stop deleting poeple's entries if you don't know if it's wrong... if you have no idea about the topic, just don't do ANYTHING to the page. (talk)

I don't remove reasonable unsourced information. I reverted your edit because it was sloppy and poorly integrated. You've made a lot of effort to argue your case here, put the same effort into your edits. Koalorka (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:L85A1 SA80.JPEG

File:L85A1 SA80.JPEG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:DM-SD-98-00176.JPEG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:DM-SD-98-00176.JPEG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luftwaffe Tornado.JPEG is now available as Commons:File:Tornado ECR JaBoG 32 1997.JPEG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FX-05

Stop removing factual information if you cannot disprove it. First of all ask yourself this:

Are you Mexican? Are you a part of the Mexican Armed Forces? Have you ever read a data sheet on the FX-05, at least?

Since you cannot answer 'yes' to any of these questions and I can, I am entitled to provide the world with factual information about the FX-05. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehefer (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be removing speculative trash. Provide a valid reference for your claims. Koalorka (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no personal attacks.

i modified a message of yours by removing a personal attack that you made. [[5]]. do not add it back or you may be blocked. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be your call whether I am blocked or not. Your action gives me a blanket release to go through your history and modify your messages in order to remove uncivil comments. Koalorka (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss MoD images

I hope you like the Mediathek VBS images. Please always look if a picture you want to use is marked “Nutzung: freie Nutzung” so it is free to use. Not all Mediathek VBS images are marked “Nutzung: freie Nutzung” and those might lead to problems when used in Wikipedia.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good call, I did notice that and made sure all the photographs I uploaded were marked "free use". We can finally give the SG 550 page some decent media. Koalorka (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SIG SG 550

"→Users: the third "revert" was just me editing the Users section.) (undo)"

That kind of means my last edit wasn't a revert. But you have done three undos as well.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed the image 3 times, that is edit warring and a violation of the 3RR no matter how you look at it. What exactly is your problem with that image in that article that you've never previously contributed anything to? Koalorka (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO...MORE than 3 times is the violation. You can hardly see the Firearm in question on the small, hard-to-see image.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you care? 2 days ago the page had almost no images and you didn't bother to improve the article in any way. Your opinion has been noted but is hardly conclusive. I counted 4 edits that you made to remove the image, including IP 88.109.166.218 which is obviously you. Koalorka (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not my IP address. Though I guess you're just another Nukes4Tots clone, fore shame. -- OsirisV (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My IP address is "86.158.54.123"-- OsirisV (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, do tell, why the sudden interest in this article? Koalorka (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. I would just like to make it clear that I am not related to these three or four other editors removing the submerged diver image. However, I do believe it has very little value for the SG 550 article. Perhaps it would be more suitable for the Military of Switzerland article—although, in my opinion, the quality of the image isn't the best, which is unusual considering how often you remove crappy images uploaded by other editors. Hayden120 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree in principle. I believe it's interesting, but not necessary for the article... but that's not the point of the reversion I made. I made the reversion because of principle. Wikipedia is about making edits. If the edit (removal of the picture that was the status quo) is disputed, leave it the way it was and take it to talk to come to a consensus. Assuming no consensus is reached, the status quo remains. The status quo IS the consensus. If it's been there a while, it's a consensus. Not sure if that was the case here... don't care. I didn't like the edit warring. Looked to me like the guilty party was using his IP as a sock to avoid the 3rr, so I helped out on principle. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The submerged diver image had only been placed in the article a day or two ago, so it hardly was the status quo. What I'm wondering is what caused the sudden interest in the article. Hayden120 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Place it in the gallery, problem solved. Koalorka (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does moving it from one place to another solve the problem? The article's subject is the SG 550 rifle (only the barrel is visible in the photograph), not the Swiss Army. Hayden120 (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it in the gallery for neutrality, (see my edit here) but it seems Nukes4Tots has reverted it claiming that the image *somehow* doesn't work. I guess this argument is gonna last a while longer.-- OsirisV (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the image is really relevant in the SG 550 article, you can barely identify that the rifle in the photo is a SG 552. And Nukes, don't know if you noticed but the image wasn't even in the article for a day before being challenged, which is hardly status quo. — DP5 14:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe this poor image has created such an impasse. I wish everyone was this engaged when it actually comes to contributing new information... Koalorka (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hy

But that main picture I added is my work. I photographed with my camera,then only edited in photoshop. By —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majesticcryx (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's highly unlikely... You had Slovenian soldiers pose for you? Koalorka (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heckler & Koch UMP

What do you mean, “completely destroyed the coding?” All I did was delete to sentence, I do not know how I could have screwed up the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanislao Avogadro (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but your edit did very strange things to the page. Koalorka (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Image permission problem with Image:VSS Rifle Iron Sights.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:VSS Rifle Iron Sights.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Thanks for uploading File:Stepanov AKS-74Us.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner 63 vs. Rodman SAW

I see you are repeating Peter Kokalis' story about the Stoner 63's rejection by the Army in favor of the Rodman SAW. The problem is that this didn't happen in 1963. Rodman Laboratory didn't get into small arms design until the responsibility was transferred from Springfield Armory prior to the latter's closure in 1968. Moreover, design work didn't begin on the 6mm SAW cartridge until late 1971, and the cartridge's specifications weren't finalized until May 1972. WECOM was testing the Stoner 63 on behalf of the USMC as late as September 1971, and the USMC didn't give up on it until December of the same year. --D.E. Watters (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, Mr. Kokalis best check his dates. Why then were the Ordnance people prejudiced against the Stoner system? What led to the dismissal? Koalorka (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We really don't know how much of the prejudice was real, imagined, or invented. For instance, in the fall of 1964, AMC General Counsel Kendall Barnes discussed potential licensing rights for the Stoner 63 with Cadillac Gage president Frederick Bauer. That is pretty odd behavior if the Army was actively trying to avoid adopting it. However, the USMC was certainly not shy about claiming the Army was prejudiced against the Stoner. Within days of the first Barnes/Bauer meeting, the Marines' vocal complaints led to the Army being pressured by the DOD to initiate the Small Arms Weapon Systems (SAWS) study (not be be confused with the later Squad Automatic Weapon trials). All of the variants of the Stoner were featured prominently during the SAWS trials, which ran from 1965 to 1966. The gas port pressure mismatch between M193 loaded with Ball powder and M196 loaded with IMR was never solved. Yet, everything else has seemed to cope with it since then. Perhaps the USMC gave up on the Stoner in 1971 because they had been funding its RDT&E for eight years with no payoff in sight. With the Army launching the Squad Automatic Weapon program and the spectre of tightening service budgets in the Vietnam drawdown, it had to be really tempting for the USMC brass to let the Army foot the entire bill for the SAW's RDT&E. While I don't dispute that the Army was hoping for a SAW in something other than 5.56mm, it seems unlikely that they sabotaged the Stoner specifically in favor of the Rodman SAW. The USMC contract with Cadillac Gage was cancelled months before Rodman (or anyone else) could have ever produced a 6mm SAW prototype. --D.E. Watters (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koalorka&oldid=285395489"