User talk:Gun Lover

March 2017

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as AK-12. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Material copied from http://modernfirearms.net/assault/rus/kalashnikov-ak-12-e.html without attribution (there's no copyright information on modernfirearms.net so I assume it's public domain...) - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: This information is incorrect. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I know, and plead temporary insanity, caused by being low on 1,3,7-Trimethylxanthine... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Lover, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gun Lover! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Your recent editing history at KRISS Vector shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bakilas (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vector

The problem with what you're doing is a lot of it is not needed (eg adding "KRISS" to the captions, it's not like any other thing called the Vector is mentioned in the article), not true (the Vector fullauto upper will fit on ANY Vector lower, so all of those calibres can be used by any Vector) or not justified (referring to the "military and LE" versions in a seperate subsection when there are no military or LE buyers) or just baffling (in the infobox, why the hell do you keep removing the 18.6" Canadian version which is on KRISS' website, changing "Vector SMG" to "production model" even though most production models do not fire at 1,200 RPM, removing the fact that civilian models are restricted to semi-auto, and adding "and" before a linebreak for two separate items?). Your new version also uses dubious sources (eg using a world.guns reference from Spring 2007 which you misquote as saying the weapon was announced then), has images fucked into places where I can guarantee they'll mess up the page on mobile devices, eliminates the variants list for no good reason, and is generally not an improvement. You are also VASTLY in violation of the three revert rule, having so far reverted about twenty times because you don't seem to know how to revert a bunch of changes at once. Bones Jones (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you SERIOUSLY think logging out to revert is going to fool anyone? Bones Jones (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think your edits are better than mine?

Yes. Your edits include actual false information (eg the current version is telling the reader ALL Vectors fire at 1,200 RPM in the infobox, and giving incorrect information about the calibre compatibility of the auto upper), introduce dubious claims, have needless repetition, split things into subsections for no real reason, etc. How about you try discussing this rather than hoping I'll just leave your mangled version up and the 3RR will magically stop applying to you? And I see you once again removed the Canadian 18.6in barrel, added that "and" to a section with a linebreak, etc. Bones Jones (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then simply add it back, dont revert everything. The select fire can only chamber either the 9mm Parabellum or the .45 ACP.

No, because, as it says in the part you hacked out, the lower contains the barrel, magwell and action, while the upper contains the trigger pack. Calibre conversions only change the lower, so an auto upper can fire anything there's a lower for. KRISS only sells complete weapons with auto uppers in two calibres (that's another part you removed, did you even read what you were reverting?) but the auto upper can fire anything the semi upper can. This is just the nature of this weapon due to its odd component layout. Bones Jones (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but KRISS only advertise that their select fire versions of the Vector can only chamber the 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP. Perhaps you can add that under the design section? You want to continue this discussion on the talk page?

(Edit conflict, was writing this while you made that change, answer is yes but please read this)

Like I said, what they mean is that they'll only sell you a complete gun with an auto upper in those two calibres, but the lower is standardised to fit on any upper: unlike, say, an AR, you don't need to change components in both parts of the gun because literally all of the gun's operating components except the trigger group are in the lower (this is also why the Vector's upper is the serialised component while for an AR it's the lower). So it's totally correct to say any Vector can use any of the listed calibres.

Also, I did add it: look at this revision under "design" and the SMG's section in "variants." This is why I'm getting frustrated, you keep removing actual content with your reverts: you also removed the section about the Cali-legal "featureless" CRB.

Which I think is because you don't know how to multi-undo. For future reference, go to page history and click on the date of the edit you want to revert to. This brings up that revision of the page. Hitting "edit" on this will pull up an edit window with the text of that version of the page and a header saying "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed. You may wish to edit the current revision instead." Hit save to revert the page back to that version. You can also often undo a specific past edit directly rather than having to dig all the way back to it one revert at a time.Bones Jones (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I updated the infobox. Do you have any information that we can add to the KRISS Vector Gen I and the weapon history?

Well I'm going to bed now, but there's stuff that could be added in that edit I linked above: the middle paragraph of "design," for a start. There isn't really a lot you can say about the Gen I Vector that isn't covered in the Gen II section (the Gen I doesn't have those things), I don't think it's a good idea to order the section like that except for weapons with military histories where there's an actual story to the Gen I version (eg the various shenanigans with the original M16) otherwise you end up just noting that it does indeed exist. Bones Jones (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I agree with you, I'll see what I can do with it. I'm glad that we had this conversation. Do you have any suggestions to where the Gen I and Gen II and perhaps the K10 should be place?

Personally I just put the Gen II improvements after the variants because it applies to every model listed and the K10 after that: while we don't know, I'm personally fairly sure the K10 was axed in favour of the Gen II upgrade to the standard model, so it should basically be addressed as an afterthought. Bones Jones (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AK-12

If you think the article currently called AK-12 should have a different title you will have to use the process at WP:RM for contested moves.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line breaks in sentences

Please do not stick line-breaks <br> in the middle of sentences.[1] People read Wikipedia articles in a range of browsers, text sizes, and window-sizes. A line break that just happens to look good on your machine, disrupts the flow on other users' machines.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gun Lover. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage help

Hi! I am working on your userpage. Look at User:Huff slush7264/sandbox and thats my work. Userboxes are at WP:UBXG. Have a nice day! Huff slush7264 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gun Lover. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beretta Cx4 Storm move

Please be more careful about page moves, such as the one you did with the Beretta Cx4 Storm. If a page needs to be moved over top of a redirect, then please follow the appropriate process as laid out at Wikipedia:Moving a page. Especially note that there was already a talk page discussion about what page name to use for the article, and consensus was to use the Cx4 as it's the forerunner and more-searched weapon. If you disagree with this, please discuss it instead of making unilateral changes.--Xanzzibar (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your changes. While there's good changes it, it also unilaterally changes the focus of the article against the consensus that was established some time back. If you have a problem with that, take it up on the talk page and consensus make change. Don't just edit war over it, follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle..--Xanzzibar (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Guns & Glory per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guns & Glory. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gun Lover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Is there anything I can do to get unblocked? I read through the guidelines and I now understand that my previous behaviour was wrong. I just want to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't wish to harm any users or articles. I promise I would not use any other accounts to support any move request I will make. I won't vandalise any articles. Can this block be reverted? :( Gun Lover (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you have now socked twice after an initial indefinite block, you are banned by the community and any appeal can only be granted at WP:AN, which means no individual admin can lift your block on their own without community discussion even if a CheckUser grants permission. Most admins will not consider taking such an appeal to AN until at least 6 months have passedTonyBallioni (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Gun Lover - Another qualified functionary will need evaluate this block and make a determination from there. Just take note that because this block was applied as a checkuser action (checkuser block), administrators who are not also checkusers cannot modify this block. You're also welcome to contact the Arbitration Committee about this block by emailing them at the address above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have now socked twice after an initial indefinite block, you are banned by the community and any appeal can only be granted at WP:AN, which means no individual admin can lift your block on their own without community discussion even if a CheckUser grants permission. Most admins will not consider taking such an appeal to AN until at least 6 months have passed TonyBallioni (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I take full accountability of my actions. Honestly I did know about Wikipedia having a policy against multiple accounts.

If you allow me to briefly explain why I did, what I did.

It all started when I made an RM on the article AS Val and VSS Vintorez. Then I went for a holiday and I couldn't access my Guns & Glory account because I've forgotten my password. So I replied on the RM discussion as an unregistered user. Yes, I should of not done that. I should of just waited until I could get access on my Guns & Glory account.

I made the JTC22 account to revert unnecessary reverts from user, Loafiewa. I was frustrated on how he just reverted my contributions without assessing carefully if they add valuable information or not. Now I understand that he had too because it was a sock puppet edit but at least review the edit before blatantly reverting them.

I really do not wish to vandalise any articles on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was rude towards other editors, and I am truly sorry for that.

I want continue improving firearm articles, that's it.

If any administrator can review my edits that were reverted by Loafiewa. Please do so, I do believe they're improvements and not vandalism. Especially on the article, AS Val and VSS Vintorez.

I learnt my lesson. I won't create any more accounts in the future. I do wish for this account to be unblocked sometime in the future. Since I know I can still contribute to Wikipedia. Gun Lover (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gun Lover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is the email I sent to arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

Is there anything I can do to get unblocked? I read through the guidelines and I now understand that my previous behaviour was wrong. I just want to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't wish to harm any users or articles. I promise I would not use any other accounts to support any move request I will make. I won't vandalise any articles. Can this block be reverted? :(

I take full accountability of my previous behaviour that led me to be blocked. I can promise everyone that it will NEVER be repeated again. I'm asking for a proper second chance to continue using my accounts and add useful contributions to Wikipedia.

Before making any further edits, I will make sure to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines to avoid any further conflicts.

I will be respectful towards other editors and communicate my changes more effectively. In any accounts that I may get into a disagreement with other editors regarding my contributions. I will communicate to them in a respectful way and explain my point of view.

I truly wish to be unblocked. And if I am to be granted this second chance. I will PROMISE to NEVER repeat such behaviour that led me to this block. I will NOT engage in any Edit wars nor create accounts to support my own RM, and I will take my time to read and understand Wikipedia Guidelines. Gun Lover (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. If you have emailed ArbCom, they will take it from there. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.