User talk:ROG5728/Archive 3

Help?

Rog, do you mind helping to add Singapore and Singapore Prison Service to the user section of Glock (brand)? IIRC, officers from the elite unit - Singapore Prisons Emergency Action Response (SPEAR) Force was at one time armed with the Glock 18. FYI, I'll be looking up the archive/records from Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore) soon, so do expect me to add the cite soon after you help with the table (I'm not good with them tables!). Please let me know if you could help, thanks and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I found a source for Singapore Prison Service (Glock 19) and added them to the users table with the source. If you know of anything else missing from the users lists let me know and I can search for sources. ROG5728 (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks, AFAIK, Glock 18 was used by SPEAR while the Glock 19 is currently employed by the elite Special Task Squadron of the Police Coast Guard. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, I searched and found a source for STS of the Police Coast Guard (Glock 19) and added them to the table. I was not able to find a source for SPEAR but I will keep looking. ROG5728 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks again and good luck searching for it, I'm afraid its very hard to get hold of any source because the Glock was used back in 1990 and was retired in favour of the SiG P226/8 series a few years back. I'll be scouring the archive later, wish me luck. In my heart, methinks it is still very hard to find the records since SPEAR is like STS, very secretive when it was first created and many data are still classified. *sigh* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

MG 08

My resource is the Dutch article on the Dutch wikipedia, don't turn back my changes --David-bel (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) It is right here:

"De Spandau's die Nederland in zijn bezit had waren allemaal geïnterneerd (niet in beslag genomen !) van de Duitsers. Ze werden later betaald aan de Duitse regering. Veel van deze wapens waren echter versleten vanwege het intensieve gebruik. Ze werden echter niet vervangen en werden in het begin gebruikt door depottroepen en luchtafweer. Veel van deze wapens waren zo erg versleten dat ze na enkele schoten al uitvielen en sommigen deden het helemaal niet. Ondanks deze mankementen werden de wapens niet vervangen (en dat terwijl het wapen normaal gesproken als zeer betrouwbaar werd beschouwd). Dit kwam waarschijnlijk door geldgebrek van de Nederlandse regering. In de meidagen van 1940 waren er ongeveer 900 Spandau mitrailleurs aanwezig en deze zijn vrijwel allemaal ingezet bij de luchtafweer. De wapens hadden een lage vuursnelheid, maar bij geen van de andere Nederlandse mitrailleurs was dit beter."

If you don't beleive then translate with some internet program

if I translate most important:

In de meidagen van 1940 waren er ongeveer 900 Spandau mitrailleurs aanwezig

In may 1940 there were about 900 MG 08 and they were used against as anti-airfract guns

--David-bel (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. Do not add the text back without citing a verifiable external source. ROG5728 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

AK-47

Hi I made some changes to the structure of the sentences which were in need of a reference (and still do), I changed the date from May to July to reflect (1) need of the reference (2) that article was edited and changed since the request in May for a reference. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I understand your reasoning but in most cases your edits only changed the wording of the sentences. Since the statements are mostly the same or very similar to the old text, the original date is more appropriate for the CN tags. Also, it's arguable that tags with older dates are more likely to be taken seriously and fixed, because they show that the text has needed a source for (in this case) several months. ROG5728 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It will be

It will be very fun to watch I get blocked from editing Wikipedia, because of the articles that I contributed the most of the parts.
In serious note, you should take a look in Republic of Korea Armed Forces to see where ROK forces involved in which war, and see where those small weapons were used. It is obvious (and everybody in Korea knows as well) that K1 and K2 went in service to replace existing M16A1, and by the time of Gulf War, OEF, and OIF, those weapons were the primary to use.
It sounds like I have to prove that Korea was invovled in Vietnam War, Gulf War, etc, although the pages in Wikipedia of those wars clearly provides information of ROK involvement.Kadrun (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistently removing sources and replacing sourced text with unsourced text could very likely result in a block, regardless of your contributions. As for the text, you can't simply look at the date of the weapon's adoption and the date of the war and deduce that it was used in the war, because that would constitute original research. You need to cite a source that actually says the weapons were used in those wars, or at the very least, a source that says the K1 and K2 were used as a primary weapon in those years. Listing OEF and OIF is unnecessary anyway because the Afghanistan War and Iraq War are already listed with sources supporting both of them. As for listing the Gulf War, the sources currently in the K1 and K2 articles don't give clear dates of adoption so they are not suitable. ROG5728 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. There's clear difference in OEF and War in Afghanistan. Republic of Korea contributed OEF in Kyrgyzstan and Horn of Africa as well as Afghanistan. It is simpler to post as OEF rather than posting every segment of OEF that ROK was involved. On the other hand, I don't mind Iraq War or OIF, which two are same thing. Kadrun (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan War already has a source. The difference in meaning doesn't warrant replacing sourced text (Afghanistan War) with unsourced text (OEF). ROG5728 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't just use OEF page and use that page as the reference of ROK involvement? Kadrun (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Even if an external source can be found on the OEF page, it would not actually explicitly say those weapons were used in OEF, whereas the current source does explicitly say the weapons were used in the Afghanistan War. ROG5728 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

MP-5 source

hi & tnx i keep it in my mind but in that case source are in main article and source num 3 !!!!mh jahanpanah (talk) 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I added the information back to the article, and cited that source for it. ROG5728 (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Source

I have my own picture like source last year on police day in Belgrade used by serbian special forces http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/SAJ_M4_rifle.JPG and this article on serbian http://www.kalibar.rs/code/navigate.php?Id=108&editionId=6&articleId=24 --Boksi (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The picture may be valid but it can't be used as a source in that format. The Kalibar article is suitable as a source, but it only says the weapon is used by Serbian border units. I went back and added that information to the article citing the Kalibar article as the source. If you find another source explicitly mentioning the SAJ or PTJ as users, they can be added too. ROG5728 (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Weapons articles

Hi,

Just wanted to leave a quick note to thank you very much for your recent work on FN P90 and other firearms articles. The dearth of copyeditors / good writers who visit articles like this mean that while they often contain excellent information they've frequently not been good reading. Your work to correct that is much appreciated. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No problem. ROG5728 (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the rationale in this edit: did you purge your cache? The templates had their own whitespace problems, which I identified and fixed following the change I made to the P90 article. That should have eliminated the problem. It's better IMO to fix the problem rather than hide it. Are you still seeing spacing problems there now? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The spacing problems seem to have been fixed when you edited the individual templates. They are aligned correctly now on my end. ROG5728 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Great. If you see that problem again, it's trivial to fix by editing the templates; let me know if you need any help. Thanks once again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch UMP

HI,

That day, I'm reverted this page to last state. So, that page was that state a long time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.31.215 (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SAR 21

Roger, I'm going to disengage from someone who claims to be an ex-Austrian serviceman who committed multiple 3RR on the abovementioned article, please check the edit history for further details and as usual, your input is greatly appreciated on the discussion page. Thanks and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I left a comment at Talk:SAR 21. One of his sources (Asian Military Review) would be suitable for a brief mention of the weapon's external similarity to the AUG, but he is obviously trying to advance a position not advanced by the sources. ROG5728 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Roger, I couldn't have said it better myself. Frankly, I have no idea where the guy got his idea (as I understand it, a blog isn't exactly a reliable source for use as reference on WP) that SAR 21 was based on the STEYR AUG when it was clearly more closely related with the TAR-21 and CR-21. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 00:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mk 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle

Hi ROG5728,
You may like to have a look at edits to this article by 71.111.129.147 (talk · contribs) these actually date back to June! Regards, --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 13:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The only change still intact was his removal of the header for the Origin/History section. I restored that header so the article is back to its normal state now. Thanks. ROG5728 (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lithuanian army

Please do not remove information on sight before checking it's validity like you did it on the Barrett M82. There are tools for asking references - like {{Citation needed}}. Thank you in advance.Lokyz (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and I am not obliged to find a source for your edits. See WP:Verifiability. Quoted directly from that policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." ROG5728 (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why one should ask for source, if there is a doubt, but not remove information on spot. There is no requirement for all the information, that's added to Wikipedia, to be sourced nor there is a policy like this. Have a good day.Lokyz (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

True Biased, And Not Holding Everyone To The Same Standard

ROG5728 you've repeatedly remove a valid, non ad-driven website (American run) while allowing a commercial blog, and a RUSSIAN site covering the AR10. The Russians do not make AR10's, WE DO. This is prejudice, and we will start with the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee to show a true bias on your part. You have no business being an admin, and you are showing obvious favoritism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR10CO (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are editing in violation of WP:LINKSPAM, because, direct quote: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam". You are also editing in violation of WP:EL because the guidelines say that external links should not be links to discussion forums. I am not an administrator, but if you continue spamming it will very likely result in a block on your account, regardless. I already recently removed a number of other unsuitable external links at AR-10. If some of the remaining links are not suitable, feel free to point them out. ROG5728 (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And you were threatening to have a site banned from search engines as well, am I correct? Should I copy and paste that part? You think you wield the authority to ban people from search engines? You need to remove the other AR10Pro site, THAT is a COMMERCIAL blog where he reports on PRODUCTS he gets for FREE to promote them. You SIR are BIASED and definitely a hypocrite. And yes, we reserve the right to finish with the WikiPedia Staff to have you reeled in a little. It sounds like its overdue for someone to stand up to you.

The AR15Pro website is unsuitable for external links, as you pointed out, and I removed it. One unsuitable external link added by someone else is not justification for adding another yourself, let alone spamming. I did not threaten to personally block any editor or any website. I used Wikipedia's standard template messages that were created by Wikipedia for warning an editor about spamming, and the potential consequences of spamming. The "threats" you refer to are actions Wikipedia frequently takes against spammers. As the templates say, if you continue spamming you will very likely be blocked from editing by a Wikipedia administrator. ROG5728 (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well? the Source?

Should I search every gun page and delete every country that doesn't have source sited? You should check Browning Automatic Rifle page so you can delete every country there. You don't even count the picture of soldier wearing specific uniform that represent the country holding specific weapon as evidence or the source. Thank you for your new philosophy.Kadrun (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A free photo gallery by an anonymous uploader is not a suitable source for anything. You need to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for example WP:RS. You did not even cite a source for the text you added at M3 submachine gun. Almost all gun articles on Wikipedia already follow WP:V for the Users sections, with citations for all countries listed. The text at M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle has been tagged for over one year and it will also be removed shortly. ROG5728 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Auto Ordnance M1 external links

I've been adding what I thought were useful links to my site, but every time I did somebody would call them spam and delete them. I've seen that world.guns.ru has links on gun-related pages all over Wiki, and nobody touches those links. Nevermind that world.guns.ru has advertising all over their site, and is as commercial as anybody. So I thought I'd see what would happen if I replaced a link to world.guns.ru with a link to my site. Well, mine got deleted, and world.guns got put back. How much is he paying you guys to leave his links on all these pages? It's pretty obvious that somebody is making some money from this, or his links would be deleted, too. Talk about double standards. GDO813 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDO813 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern Firearms (world.guns.ru) does contain advertisements, but it is an information resource by gun author Maxim Popenker. Gun Dealers Online (your website) is not an information resource, and adding it to the link list for advertising purposes constitutes spam. See WP:SPAM, where this is covered in detail. Direct quote: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." ROG5728 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Just on the M1 page, World Guns has 11 banner ads, 3 ads hawking Popenker's books, and 37 "external links" that are either paid links to other commercial sites or links to pages on his site that have nothing but Google Adsense ads on them. He could contribute content to the M1 page, but instead you guys let him have a link to his ads. Either he's laughing all the way to the bank, kicking back some $$ to you guys, or both. GDO813 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern Firearms contains advertisements, but it's an information resource. Your website is not an information resource; rather, it's an advertisement in and of itself. The Modern Firearms link contains an extensive write-up on the M1 carbine. Your link is a gun dealer trying to sell .45 ACP Auto Ordnance handguns. It does not even contain any mention whatsoever of the M1 carbine. To suggest that such a link is suitable at M1 carbine is absurd. If you can find an M1 carbine article that is higher quality than the Modern Firearms article, feel free to replace it. A "Gun Dealers Online" link for .45 ACP handguns is not suitable by any stretch of the imagination. ROG5728 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Koalorka

Are you user:Koalorka? Please don't take it the wrong way, I'm just asking since you appeared around the time he was indef blocked and you edit many of the same range of article he did. --87.79.161.49 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No. This account was created nearly one month before that user was blocked. I did register as a user here due to his recommendation. See User talk:66.142.231.0. Prior to registering, I had edited FN gun articles as an IP user. ROG5728 (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for taking the time to respond. --87.79.140.115 (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mosin-Nagant Finnish variant M39

The rifle is nicknamed "Ukko-Pekka" after Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, the President of Finland from 1931 to 1937 and an active member of Finnish national guard Suojeluskunta, in this matter it may be hard to find verifiable Internet source for such a trivial information, other than what can be found from Wikipedia article about Svinhufvud; Ukko-Pekka (Old Man Pete) was his nickname and many things have been called Ukko-Pekka during and after his presidency, if you want to call that coincidence, be my guest. Ape89 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to an article about M39 in Finnish Wikipedia (Note: M39 is a rifle of Finnish origin and well known in Finland by the name "Ukko-Pekka", which may be the reason why no-one has questioned verifiability of this nickname applying to this rifle, it's common knowledge here.) Ape89 (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot use other Wikipedia articles as sources. I found an external source and added it to the article. ROG5728 (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your editing style

I'd like you to take a short break and reflect a little over your wikipedia editing style.

In the way that you are currently operating, you regularly get into coflict with other users for removing sections of information or entire paragraphs, usually citing that the portion of text lacks sources. This, in it self, might sound unproblematic, but when it becomes systematic action - over-zealous guarding of pages, deletion of large chunks of information (which usually is correct information), then you soon wander from being a remedy for a problem to becoming a problem in its own right.

If you find some harmless information that lacks sources (such as lists of operators), please consider adding appropriate issue tags, such as {{fact}}, {{Cn}} or {{Unreferenced}}, alternatively, address the question on the article talk page or the appropriate workgroup talkpage. Please do not not immediately delete the information. Sometimes a user has put considerable work into gathering the information.

Suggested reading: WP:WL, WP:IAR, WP:ZEAL, WP:FANATIC. --MoRsE (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to old comments on my talk page, and not my editing style itself, because...

- It was never my editing style to remove "sections of information or entire paragraphs" (due to lack of sources) without first applying a cleanup tag several months in advance. As you would guess, no one has ever provided any sources when these cleanup tags are applied. In the case of AR-15 (discussed here earlier), the section I removed had already been tagged by another editor for over six months and no sources had been produced for any of the text. In fact, the entire section was factually incorrect because the AR-15 is a civilian version of the M16 rifle. The latter weapon already had a users list -- it did not need to be duplicated at AR-15. Users of the M16 rifle are not users of the AR-15.

- Following Wikipedia policy will lead to occasional conflict. This should not be surprising. Still, most of the conflict you mention took place nearly a year ago, when I was removing entire unsourced users sections.

- I don't remove entire unsourced users sections anymore because (see below) I have already reworked and added back the text for virtually all of them. At this point any given firearm article has a very complete users list with sources for every country. I watch hundreds of weapons articles to monitor them for vandalism and other poor quality changes. Across this watchlist, I do revert a few minor unsourced additions to the users lists in a typical day. Yesterday, I reverted one unsourced entry out of the hundreds of articles I watch. The day before that, I reverted two unsourced entries out of the hundreds of articles I watch. The unsourced additions I revert are typically a single flag template, and nothing more. Of course, this is not "over-zealous guarding of pages" or fanatical behavior.

- My editing style has always eventually improved the quality of the articles in question. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that I never removed an unsourced users list without later adding the text back with sources. Maybe I should note this on my user page to avoid confusion. Some examples -- I personally added most or all of the text and sources in the users lists at: M72 LAW, SKS, AK-47, Walther PP, Armbrust, Type 56 assault rifle, SIG Sauer P226, Beretta 92, Steyr SSG 69, FN FAL, FGM-148 Javelin, AT4, Heckler & Koch GMG, FN MAG, Heckler & Koch G3, AK-74, Rheinmetall MG 3, Heckler & Koch P9S, Beretta BM59, FN Five-seven, FN P90, FN F2000, M79 grenade launcher, Dragunov sniper rifle, Browning Hi-Power, Steyr AUG, Mk 19 grenade launcher, Uzi, RPD, RPK, Heckler & Koch MP7, Milkor MGL, M2 Browning machine gun, FN FNC, FN Minimi, RPG-7, and dozens of other weapons articles. In addition to being 100% sourced, the users lists in these articles are as large (or larger) than they were before I reworked them. I may have removed some of them initially, but I did substantial work completing them and adding them back with sources. This is not harmful editing by any stretch of the imagination. ROG5728 (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe I first noted your editing style some 6 months ago. Although feeling ill at ease with some of your edits then, I did not take any action. But you have proven more persistant than I first imagined - I don't see much change today from then.

You argue that you improve articles by removing unsourced information. Instead you insist on using sources that are notoriously untrustworthy in some regards, such as Jane's (remember that such extensive works need to meet annual deadlines, often resulting in errors and mistakes, especially in foreign operators data (read "non-US")).

The lack of sources in the general "Operators" section is by rule not a problem. The lack of sources in controversial entries are. The weapons articles entries are usually well supervised, written and put on the "watch"-list by editors with a genuine interest, and erroneous entries will be removed sooner or later. The reason why there has been little or no reaction to the banners, is probably beacause the operators section is usually considered uncontroversial (with some exemptions, such as nuclear weapons, weapons of Israeli origin and so on). A country that is a bit of a question mark could simply be dealt with quicker if you added a {{fact}} tag behind the entry. Then editors would immediately see the problem area, and be able to address it accordingly. Clearly erroneous facts can be deleted immediately.

Also, the way that you greet newcomers, like in this edit, for this edit that I randomly picked from your history, is quite - how should I put it - discouraging. It is well known that Walther PP & PPKs were used by the Swedish Police before the introduction of Glocks (and yes, I am not a Swede, and I still know about it). See this picture for one example with a permanent stamp "Tillhör Polisen" (Belongs to the Police Force). As a challange, I picked another one of your entries, where you have deleted some information from the M72 LAW article, removing The Philippines as a user. It took me less than a minute to find an article online about how Philippine rebels managed to come over some M72A2 rocket launchers from a Philippine Army depot.[1]

Finally, the banner that you insist on adding on top of each "operators" section that you edit is quite discouraging to editors and I would argue that it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.

<!--READ FIRST: This section is for cited entries only. Please do not add entries into this list without a citation from a reliable source. All entries without a citation will be removed. Thank you.-->

I feel quite tempted to remove these. --MoRsE (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You say I am "removing" unsourced information, but at this point I am rarely doing that. Technically I am simply reverting the addition of new text that is unsourced. These additions are very tiny bits of text and the IP editors adding them usually do not even take the time to enter them alphabetically in the list or with functional flag templates.

Feel free to point out where I have insisted other editors use Jane's Information Group as their source. I have never said anything of the sort. Regardless, in my experience Jane's has been extremely reliable regarding weapons and their usage. According to what experience is Jane's a "notoriously untrustworthy" source? Specifically, what weapons are listed for countries that do not actually use them? Of course, the Jane's book is not 100% complete, but it is one of the most complete sources available. If you actually look at examples of my work, such as FN P90, I personally use many types of citations (books, magazines, websites, occasionally captioned photographs from professional sources such as Getty Images).

Text need not be "controversial" to fall under WP:V. As the policy says, "This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons." It also says that this core policy applies to any text "challenged or likely to be challenged." I challenge these additions on the basis that "users" text is naturally dubious and frequently incorrect, especially since evaluation purchases often lead people to believe that an organization uses a weapon when in fact it does not; in those cases the organization simply purchased a small quantity and tested it briefly, before abandoning it.

Over-zealous application of the verifiability policy would be the blind removal of all unsourced text in these articles. For example, by removing infoboxes due to being unsourced or by removing entire sections from the article bodies. I am not doing that. What I am doing at this point is maintaining one section in these articles -- a section that has frequently included dubious or incorrect claims. I have added dozens of sources for these user lists across virtually all firearms articles, and at this point injecting tiny bits of dubious unsourced text into the lists only reduces the overall quality.

I have a lot of experience using both fact tags and cleanup banners. I cannot remember a single instance where either of these ever produced a source of any type. The only method that actually produces sources is removal. Editors have no inclination to find a source for their text if it has a tiny tag on it, but they will often find a source for their text if it would otherwise be removed. I learned this myself years ago as an IP editor when the WP:V policy was applied by others to my edits. I put together very complete users lists at some of these articles, but they were devoid of sources. As you may guess, my edits were reverted and since I knew I was correct I added dozens of sources to these articles so my information would remain intact. I didn't like the policy, and others may not either, but I realize that it builds Wikipedia articles. It produces sources and verifiable text.

I post templates to user talk pages so the editors know who reverted their edits, and why I reverted them. I follow this format closely because this was suggested to me by an administrator, to avoid potential edit wars with these editors. This is the purpose these templates exist for. The template is polite and informative so you shouldn't find it "discouraging." You are going to great lengths to assume bad faith on my part. I typically include a welcome note at the beginning of each template but the example you listed is an editor that has been active since 2007.

It is definitely not "well-known" that the Swedish Police used the Walther PP or PPK. This is apparent because you were unable to find any better source than an anonymous photograph of the pistol with a police stamp on it. Obviously this is not a suitable source. It gives some anecdotal indication, so it could justify adding the text to the list indefinitely with a fact tag in place. But the IP editor adding this text did not cite a source of any type and I would not have noticed the photo in a google search.

The entry at M72 LAW was automatically questionable because the editor cited a source (Jane's) that does not actually say the M72 is used in the Philippines. If finding a source for this text was so easy for you, the editor adding it could have done the same. After all, the addition was his idea. I do occasionally search for sources for these additions, but I'm not obliged to do this, especially when the editor in question cites a source (Jane's) that does not actually support his text.

Any editor on Wikipedia is free to ask me for further help in finding a source for this sort of information. I have been able to find sources for some text, but in other cases a source will not turn up even after extensive searching. My primary interest on Wikipedia is completing the FN P90 and FN Five-seven articles, and I am aware of several users that are absent from the lists in these articles. Of course I would like to add them for sake of completeness, but I realize that photograph sources are typically not suitable so the lists are of higher overall quality without them. Some details may be absent but they can be added later when a suitable source is found; still, the reader gets a general idea of the number of known users the weapon has.

The citation banner was not my creation. It was being used by other editors across these lists when I started editing Wikipedia. Around the time I started adding sources for these lists, I also duplicated the banner for consistency across articles. In reality most editors probably ignore it completely. The additions we are talking about are very tiny edits that typically involve almost no effort. Regardless, you should not find the banner "discouraging" because it essentially repeats what is said to every editor by Wikipedia in every edit window -- that is, "encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Is Wikipedia's own edit window also "against the spirit of Wikipedia?" ROG5728 (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Knockdown power undo

Hello. I must admit I was a bit surprised to see my contribution to the "stopping power" discussion a) undone so quickly (it's good to see people keeping an eye on Wikipedia) and b) it was considered "dubious".

The point I was trying to make is it's fairly easy to make a moving biped trip. If I'm running and all of sudden something smacks into me, well, there's a pretty good chance I'll stumble. A baseball moving at 60 miles per hour has about the same momentum as a 230-grain .45 bullet at 850 ft/s. If I'm out jogging (an unlikely event, I admit :-) ) and somebody suddenly pitches a baseball into me, stumbling around and even falling is not out of the question. Not purely because of the transfer of momentum, but simply because the impact and/or surpise causes a mis-step and lets gravity do its work on me.

"Jackass" and "America's Funniest Videos" offer some anecdotal evidence to this effect, in my opinion.

Just wanted to get this out there. Krispos42 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely possible for a bullet's impact to cause someone to stumble or even drop due entirely to the psychological effect, but this was noted in the paragraph directly following the one you edited at Stopping power. As for the force itself directly causing someone to stumble -- that is definitely dubious. Such a statement should be supported by a reliable source. ROG5728 (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Daewoo K11 users

Rog, I don't want to get into another argument with you, but can you please explain how the UAE is not a User of the Daewoo K11 (40 purchased for evaluation), but for the Daewoo K3 South Africa (1 purchased) and Thailand (2 purchased) are stated to be Users? What are the criteria here? Regards Mztourist (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't notice that, but purchases that small (1-2) would definitely indicate evaluation purposes and not actual use. The Daewoo K3 doesn't have an overwhelming number of users, so it is probably still worth noting those two purchases somewhere. I moved the text out of the users section and mentioned it in Foreign sales instead. ROG5728 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your approach on the K3. But what is the criteria for a country to be a User? How many do they have to procure? 100? 1000? Regards Mztourist (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as inclusion in the users lists, the intent of the purchase is the only criteria. A country purchasing a handful of weapons for actual use would be listed as a user, while a country purchasing 100+ for limited testing wouldn't be listed as a user. In cases where we can't be sure of the intent of the purchase, we have to make an assumption based on the number purchased. For example, we assumed the single K3 purchased by South Africa was intended for testing purposes. Of course, noteworthy evaluation purchases (such as the UAE purchase of 40 K11s) may still be worth including elsewhere in the articles; they just wouldn't be mixed into the users list with countries that are actually issuing the weapon. This is just my approach, but I think the firearms project would agree with it. You can always open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. This specific point hasn't been discussed thoroughly. ROG5728 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Rog, that approach seems reasonable, thanks Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

M16 wiki

Hello ROG, I notice you edit the M16 Wiki. The quote from Rose (footnote 28) about the damage of the 5.56x45 round being attributable to the rate of twist is nonsense. The science explaining this can be found at: 1 and 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.59.147 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I generally don't edit the article text at M16 rifle, but you are correct, the article was in error. I revised that paragraph and cited one of the sources you mentioned. ROG5728 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)