User talk:Koalorka

	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.

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

LAF as user of Minimi

Hello, You have undone my modification in which i included Lebanon as an operator for the FN Minimi Have a look at these photos

1. Photo one
2. Photo two

Please when you see the source and find them okay, undo you chages Thank you --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 21:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Have a look here

Thanks --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 08:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have no way of identifying which nationality the soldiers in your images belong to. We need a published source for the information, not a few randomn photos, but I will retain Lebabon on the list so long as you can find that source in a realistic amount of time. Koalorka (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, these soldiers are from the Lebanese Navy SEALs, these photos are available on the Lebanese Army pictures thread on MP.net, the largest thread on the internet featuring Lebanese army photos... --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dude", it doesn't matter. Go see what is considered a source in Wikipedia. Koalorka (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

mm I can't find a document with the LAF equipment in details, the only sources for us are the photos because the Lebanese Army does not publish such details. Many operators in the list are not referenced btw. What do you suggest??? thank you:) --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 09:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We will retain Lebanon on the list of users based on those photos and attempt to find a source. Koalorka (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you:)--Zaher1988 · ^Talk 19:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Peiper photo!!

Please, stop changing the photo in this thread. I have written large portion of this article and included this excellent photo of Peiper... It is one of the best known originals by Hoffmann, which appeared in 100s of magazines and publications. You are welcome to included your photo elsewhere in the article, but removing images of others is vandalism... Another change will likely result in the suspension of your editing privileges. regards, maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo is a poor portayal of the man himself that's why I introduced a portait-type image. Youa are welcome to use your image in the text below. Koalorka (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Joachim Peiper. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

• • • This is the second time you changed my image. According to my colleagues, you also changed their revisions in the Peiper's article 3 and 2 times. That is the seventh time you did this and therefore were reported to administrators!! The original image by Hoffmann was in this thread since 2004. I reloaded it in 2008. The photo has higher resolution than yours by a mile - 600dpi to yours 72dpi. It is made on special high quality paper and therefore it appears as if it had ripples on it. However, it is absolutely arrogant and downright wrong to change photos in the articles in this fashion. I contacted an administrator for help in this matter. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I have reverted to the rightful image 3 times. Others made the other revisions!! Maybe you should learn to count properly!! Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • The burden of proof is on you. Actually, I was alerted to your changes by a friend of mine and only the past two reverts are mine. Another one I asked a friend of mine to make. That is 3. If you were smarter, you could see from the IP addresses that the changes were made in different countries... and as much as I enjoy Wikipedia, I would not go abroad to edit it. The vandalism report was made - good luck!!Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see this comment, and take the dispute to the article talk page. Please lay off the accusations, and discuss the matter in a civil, scholarly way. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued attacks

Despite my request for a calmer discussion (along with the rather forceful page protection) you have decided to continue behaving in an inappropriate way. Maria is not a troll, she merely has a different interpretation of this from you. If you continue, you will be blocked. Note that I am looking into your accusations of sockpuppetry. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, even if the IP is a sock a Maria, then it makes no difference in terms of 3RR, so I am not willing to take action. If you want to pursue this, file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I'm leaving for the night now. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, discussion correct? I did that, I started a discussion on the image suitability and did nothing further. Well did you happen to notice that MariaLopes went ahead and did a mass revert on any remaining images? Did that somehow elude you? Where's the warning on her page? Did you also fail to notice the series of sock accounts used to revert the disputed pages? Please do your job, or direct me to someone that can handle a dispute like this. Koalorka (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My job is to sell books. I'm a volunteer here like you. I have, as I explained, reviewed the sockpuppet accusation, and, as I also explained, left, because I wanted to watch a film and did not believe it was worth following up at this time. I also find Maria's reverting over several pages concerning, but what do you want/expect me to do about it? This is a comparatively minor issue. If Maria in turn refuses to engage in conversation, then yes, we have a problem, but she is not, she is happy to discuss this with you. This is not worth taking to any of the noticeboards of yet. Try to look at it from Maria's point of view- you have come out of nowhere and removed several images she has uploaded, replacing them with what she sees as inferior images. She is just getting back to the status quo, believing that the burden of proof is upon you. Stop screaming for blood, and just discuss the issue. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the sockpuppet report you filed to the list of open cases, as you seemed to forget to. J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

VHS assault rifle

Why the revert on VHS assault rifle? These were good faith edits... GregorB (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but very poor quality edits. Koalorka (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well... It appears that it was all copied verbatim from the source, and this source is definitely WP:RS. Could still be copyedited. Apart from that, "rotating breech head" is a novel term to me (still, I'm not really a firearms expert). GregorB (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Koalorka (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Steyr M

I saw you worked a lot on the Steyr M article. I moved 2 Steyr M images from Wiki EN to Wiki Commons in Category:Steyr M. I think a bot will eventually take care of the images left in Wiki EN, since some automatic messages where generated during the transfer. You will see a "new" image of an original Steyr M9 in the Steyr M article. Maybe you want to use this image in the infobox.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a better image no doubt, but I believe it has already been removed once since the uploader is unlikely to be the author, it appears to be from Steyr promotional material. It will probably be removed again once reviewed in Commons, but let's keep it for now. Koalorka (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 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) 03:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought the project was dead, last I checked

Fair enough, holding off. The category (and many others under Firearms) is over-packed and under-sorted, but if there's a set plan to recategorize I'm certainly open to it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It maybe crowded, but smaller national categories already exist for most nations. Besides, most countries have fewer then 2 indigenous firearms, making long empty lists very impractical. Koalorka (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste move of Walther PPK

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Walther PPK a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Walther PP. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. David Pro (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. David Pro (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't recently, and you'll notice that I've been using the Requested Moves page ever since. Koalorka (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RK 95

Hi, I changed this description to say LONG STROKE gas piston. you undid this rev and commented that "this is definately not a short stroke system" The article appears to still say short stroke.

According to the "gas operated" article, a long stroke system is one where the piston is attached to the bolt carrier. The picture of the guts shows this to be an attached piston, just like the AK. Where is the disconnect here?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.220.108 (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect, a long-stroke system is defined by the length of travel of the piston, not its method of attachment to the bolt carrier... I will correct the article to say "long stroke". Koalorka (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

M249

The USA were not involved in the deveopment of the aweapon. They requested designs with specific requirements and tested them. The Minimi was the best and was accepted. Also please refrain from calling me a troll. And I would appreciate you changing the colour or removing the orange bar at the top of this page. Fo a seccond I thought i had nmessages.--Patton^t/c 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you have no idea actually. The Minimi is a scaled down version of a 7.62mm design originally proposed by FN, then modified according to test results and feedback from the US. Get your facts straight before you engage in an edit war. Koalorka (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? None of the ones in the article say anything about a 7.62mm design. They say the US army was originally looking for a 6mm weapons but then accepted the 5.56mm minimi because a new cartridge would put greater strain on logistics.

There was a great source for that in the old Mk 48 Mod 0 article before it got merged into the M249 article by a certain contributor. --D.E. Watters (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any sources in that article.--Patton^t/c 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see it just fine in the References section. There is a link to a Small Arms Review article on the Mk 48 Mod 0. In the same issue, there was an article on the original 7.62mm Minimi prototypes. Exactly a year later, SAR had a follow up article on the Mk 48. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons" says that the US just requested designs and made only a few minor modifications. That hardly counts as designing.--Patton^t/c 15:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying that the US was involved in what would become the M249, including, crucially, the choice of cartridge, which was the 62 gr. SS109 developed specifically for this program and then later adopted by NATO. Koalorka (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the US sponsored FN's development of heavy ball cartridges (the SS92/1, SS101, and SS109). At the time of the NATO Trials, the US was pushing for adoption of the 5.56mm XM777 Ball and XM778 Tracer. These could still be used in a 1/12" twist barrel, and thus, would not require rebarreling of the M16A1 already in service. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent info. Koalorka (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright?

Perhaps you would kindly explain to me HOW to create a copywright so the pictures I uploaded can stay here. I am new here.

Dear moron, you do not "create" a copyright, you either need to be the owner of the image or have an explicitly stated permission from the owner to be able to upload the images. Your uploads were removed because the images were obviously not yours and you had no permission to use them. You continue doing that, you will be banned. Koalorka (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then HOW THE FUCK DO I GET PERMISSION KOALA BOY?

You are jeapordizing your status here with persistent vulgarism, hostility and incvility. There are guidelines you can follow that will tell you everything you need to know, sadly, that requires a bit of effort. Koalorka (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine I quit. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And you say I'm going to be reported but yet you already said I am being reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And exactly what are the "magnificent" benefits of being a wookipedia member? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And you didn't answer my question. Mabybe you should lighten up and try to help me so we can both diffuse this little situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The situation you failed to prevent. The introduction template on your talk page for one provides a host of links you can follow that will help you as a novice editor. Koalorka (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka, your comments to Josh Woolstenhulme are not in keeping with our civility policy and are perfect examples of WP:BITE. If you can't bring yourself to interact professionally and helpfully with new editors, don't interact with them at all. Attacks, incivility, and general hostility to newcomers will result in blocks just as quickly as copyright violations. - auburnpilot talk 14:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool story brah. Koalorka (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i don't know how you addressing a newbie as dear moron, and then threatening him with a block could help anything. it'd be better to gain new editors, not lose them. auburn pilot wasn't telling you a "cool story," he was telling you what needs to be said. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion. Thank you for your comment. Koalorka (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not opinion, it's a fact. Failure to abide by policy and inherited guidelines will result in a block. These are your only warnings you'll receive. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Mr. Abuse of policy toward new editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me one reason to listen to a moron like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, I actually gave you pointers on how to start and you've done nothing but throw crude insults at me. Two, don't upload those images again without permission from their owners, don't waste our time, having several people tied down to clean up after you. Koalorka (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides Theserialcomma told me about abusive people like you. I'll just keep trying until I eventually get it right. And I will get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

and actually you gave me no pointers at all. You have done nothing to help. You've gotten in trouble your self so I would worry more yourself that wasting time trying to "help" me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Woolstenhulme (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive, nothing further from the truth. I wouldn't listen to Serialcoma, he/she has been involved in a lot of controversy, you don't want to get aligned with the wrong type of people. You can upload images so long as you have permission to do so or are the author, I would love to be able to use the images that you provided for our purposes, unfortunately, it's not that simple. Trouble, myself? LOL, no, coma is just butthurt he/she was contradicted by the community everywhere he/she "edited". Coma's activities are what we call trolling, no content contributed, just hollow threats and drama. Users like that are best avoided. Koalorka (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like you really are going to get into alot of trouble by insulting other users like that.Josh Woolstenhulme (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, looks like you got banned for theft of copyrighted media. My status here is the least of your worries. Koalorka (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 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) 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Image size

Thanks for the heads up I was not aware of that Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome and reference to the WikiProject Firearms page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewYorkCityPhilanthropy (talk • contribs) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your failure to assume my good faith is bad faith. Koalorka (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)