User talk:Nukes4Tots

User talk templates

Image Copyright

Hi, I uploaded the image of Sgt. Strank of Flags of our Fathers, is there anyway it can stay on the site without being considered "stolen"? I apoligize, I didn't mean to steal it (I simpley screencapped it from my DVD, since I'm uploading screencaps for www.imfdb.org now), but I have no idea how to fill out the copyright information. - Gunmaster45 (talk)

Well, the copyright holder has to give permission for the use of the photo on Wikipedia. There are tutorials on Wikipedia that explain how to do it. It's not too difficult, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I've reviewed the edits and believe I found what you might not have but what about the edit on Stoner 63..legit or no?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the M3 submachine gun thing. It wasn't my intention to change so dramatically. I just wanted to express my opinion since I once saw on the article that the M3 submachine gun was still used and it was used on Iraq. I am recent to Wikipedia and I'm still learning how to edit documents. Please don't ban me from editing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeekid (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for expressing your opinion. The M3 was NOT in service with the United States for the Iraq war. Unless you bring references that say otherwise, I will continue to work to exclude your "opinion" as original research. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Found this. According to this page in WIKIPEDIA it said that the M3 subamachine gun was used until the mid-1990's by tank crews. Here's the link: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=142914.Also found this http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/M3-submachine-gun saying that in WIKIPEDIA before it said before that the M3 was used until the mid 1990's which proves the the military photos link.--Coffeekid (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was there, I know. We're not talking about the first Gulf war, we're talking about the invasion of Iraq in 2003. All the Grease Guns were in long-term storage by then. That's what the M4 is for now. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I figured it out that when Iraq started the M3 where replaced with the M4. If you want you can add those links to the M3 article or I could add them. --Coffeekid (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Calibre/Caliber

In reference to the C96 article, it's not me changing the spelling to a "non-standard" version, it's me, as the person who wrote most of the article, reverting an un-necessary change to an American spelling. Also, the C96 is an Imperial topic; Churchill carried one and they were used by British officers during the Boer War, World War I, and various "Little Wars" fought around that time. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill carried a Tommy Gun too, that doesn't mean it's any more imperial than the next one. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

He posed for a photograph with one. He didn't actually carry one into combat the way he (and T.E. Lawrence) carried C96s. At any rate, the point is that the article was already using the British spelling and there's no reason to arbitrarily change it to the US one. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't know it was already limey-spelled. Funny how the Americans speak better English than the English. Spell better too. ;-) --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, leaving out the letter "U" from certain words does make it a little easier for you. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for CopyVio - File:USAssaultRifleWP.jpg

Here is some more ammo for your side. Note that three of the loads in question (M995, Mk 262, and 6.8mm SPC) did not exist at the time cited for the drawing (1990). This looks more like the work of Dr. Gary K. Roberts. It is hard to say whether this was the product of his work with the US military, a civilian agency, or both. If you'd like, I'll contact Dr. Roberts for confirmation. --D.E. Watters (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The other photo with "Direct Impingement" was from an Army Times article... that was easy to find as I remember exactly where I had seen it before. I don't know how long this editor will last. It seems he's got some axe to grind but if he'd just play by the rules, cooler-headed editors and the facts will eventually prevail. Heck, we might even agree with his points. We'll see. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:RussianWP.jpg also looks like something Dr. Roberts put together, although it may contain material from Dr. Fackler. I'm pretty certain that Dr. Roberts used both pictures in his 2008 NDIA Small Arms briefing, and has posted them on several firearms forums. As for the Army Times picture, most folks don't realize that the publication is a civilian operation. It is owned by Gannett, the same folks who put out USA Today. --D.E. Watters (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Userpage

Userpage Barnstar

For creating a userpage that made me smile I'd like to present you with a Userpage Barnstar. Peace the old fashioned way --Ndunruh (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

10mm Auto

This isn't a warning or anything like that. When you edited the image link in the 10mm Auto article to File:DCB Shooting Bren Ten & SW 610.jpg you changed spelling and added brackets in the filename, not the caption. The result was a broken image link. Using the preview button will help you avoid that sort of thing. Hellbus (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I normally just make the edit and look at the page to ensure I got it right. I can correct it later. I don't use a preview that much as most of my edits are the way I want them to be the first time. Seems silly to preview the 9 out of 10 edits I get right when I can just repair the one out of 10 mistakes I make after I've made it. Thanks for the heads-up, though. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Nukes4Tots, I don't suppose you could send me an e-mail, there's something important that I'd like to talk with you about. It involves a number of other people too, and we'll be discussing something I think you'll be interested in.--LWF (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated disruptive editing and uncivil edit summaries. This is most likely your last finite block; I suggest you either learn to conform to the collaborative, collegial nature of Wikipedia, or spend your time elsewhere. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 21:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, where did this come from? I had a stalker leaving messages that I deleted without reading... as I told this person before I was not required to read his warnings. Anybody? Where was the due process? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See here. I suspect it was probably the personal attacks in the edit summaries, referring to another user's edits as vandalism when they weren't, and the shockingly racist edit summaries that cause Tan to block you. I'd advise you to stop attacking Theserialcomma; apparently multiple blocks for personal attacks haven't really driven home to you that they're not allowed--which is probably the other reason Tan blocked you for a month. → ROUX ₪ 03:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd certainly like to see an example of a, "Shockingly Racist" anything I've done. Please enlighten me. Also, where did I attack Theserialcomma? Again, please elighten me again. The ANI looks like, "Oh, we know he's a racist, ban him!" But I'd really like that case spelled out for me. Kinda funny justifying a 1-month ban based on an edit comment of, "RVV" when I was reverting vandalism. Hard to call me a racist for me using the term, "El Bandito" when describing an unreferenced edit reversion adding Mexico to a list of users. Yeah, kinda hard. But, if there's more of a case to be made, I'd like to see it. I'd REALLY like to see it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"rv: El Bandito", "filipino bandido", etc. Calling someone a 'bandito'--a Spanish term--for adding Mexico is the very definition of racist. But you know this of course. As well, as mentioned above, inaccurately referring to other users edits as vandalism, calling other users trolls and stalkers in your edit summaries, etc. Again, you know all this, so I'm not sure why you're pretending not to.

Either way, you have three choices here: 1) come back in a month, don't modify your behaviour, receive an indef block and/or community ban when you act out again; 2) come back in a month, modify your behaviour, and don't get blocked; 3) leave Wikipedia. Obviously choice #2 is preferable, but they really are your only options at this point. → ROUX ₪ 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not pretending, it's honestly a different world that you live in where you can't say "Bandit" in Spanish or Tagalog and expect to be called a racist. What race am I? What behavior is it exactly that I'm in need of modifying? Is this for real? I am asking for a definition other than, "Because I think it's racist for a person to use the term "Filipino Bandit"". I don't really expect anything in return. I'm not pretending anything, I'm asking for a defense of whatever position it was that caused me to be banned. Is there some rule against this. You're being played and you don't know or care. I've been threatened DOZENS of times without any real substance behind the reasons I was banned, only editors who are against me. So, racist? That's quite the inflamatory charge and you'll have to back it up with more than, "Because I said so!" --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not because I said so, it's demonstrated in the diffs above. Generally speaking, you were using the language of a particular group in the course of making a pejorative comment. That is racism. In any case, that is not the only concern, obviously. You have a long history of personal attacks, and blocks have apparently not taught you to stop. Continually referring to another user as a troll or a stalker--immediately after coming off a block for personal attacks, yet!--is a problem, which I am guessing is the other reason that Tan blocked you, as I said above. Either would be sufficient on its own, particularly given that as I just said you literally just came off a block for personal attacks and then made more. I refer you again to the three choices you have, and I sincerely hope you pick the second one. → ROUX ₪ 03:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I appreciate your use of big words here, but Pejorative? How was my comment pejorative? This 'long history of personal attacks' and 'ban for personal attacks' you point out are also in need of defense. This 'witch hunt' for anybody who is doing something that anybody eles can take the wrong way is laughable. How does one freely exchange ideas when one is so hog-tied by this false ettiquite that content is irrelevant.

You're not in charge, here, so please stop patronizing me with your 'three choices'. Didn't read that. I want you to tell me what race I am? That'd be a nice trick. If I'm a racist, what race am I? Asked and unanswered so far and it's kind of a trick question, but please answer it. It goes to the hart of why I was banned. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't give two figs what 'race' you are. And again: you're focusing on that as though that were the only reason you're blocked, and ignoring things like calling other users trolls and stalkers. Also, the three choices is an observation on how these things go. The choice is entirely yours: modify your behaviour and be allowed to continue editing, don't and don't. The long history of personal attacks is there for anyone to see, so I have no idea why you're pretending it's not. Well actually I know exactly why you are pretending, and I am disinclined to indulge you any further. I had initially posted here assuming good faith that your question was sincere. → ROUX ₪ 16:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for being racist; I have no opinion on that matter. You were blocked for the reasons in the above template. And your attitude here certainly shows that the block was justified. Any further incivility will result in an indefinite block. Tan | 39 13:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you blocked me for personally attacking somebody... where? If I report him for stalking and harassing (which I can't now because I've been banned) then does that mean it's no longer a personal attack? Seems like a catch 22 since I've been banned for making an accusation to ANI because the editor in quesiton was quicker on the draw? What if I'd accused him of, um, let's say ANYTHING else on my talk page, that'd be considered a personal attack? I don't understand the duality of this. I was being harassed for an edit comment of "RVV" on vandalism that I was reverting. Harassed? Yes, that's what it was. I have told this particular editor before that I would not read comments that he posted on my page and they would be reverted. The editor in question had NO iron in the fire other than a vendetta he has against me for his losing several arguments about editing the Glock pistol article. Calling him out on that is a personal attack? This ban is bogus. I've been banned for making an accusation, so why isn't the other editor banned for making the report? These are good faith questions. Points of order, if you will. These are not 'bad faith' as is being assumed by one responder here. I have no other venue to voice my side of the story... please indulge me. How is making an accusation in an edit comment on my own page... one that I've made dozens of times before... now a personal attack worthy of a one month ban? This is rediculous. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nukes, the other editor IS currently blocked for baiting you/making the report and has been cautioned to stay away from you in the future. See WP:ANI#Theserialcomma baiting block review. My opinion would be that if you show a willingness to restrain from further comments towards other editors and admit that you are not completely without some fault, this would show that you are proactively working to improve things. If that is the case and you endorse that point of view, then I would recommend reducing the block time.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's new to me... because I have no interest in stalking the other editor. Funny, my moves are watched closely by the other editor but I take no interest WHATSOEVER in what he does. I don't edit the same articles, watch his talk page, or do anything of the sort... yet he does the same to me and baits me. All I can be accused of is taking the bait. It's odd that I get banned for a month for making an edit comment of, "destalkerizing" and yet he makes this edit, [1] which in no uncertain terms calls me a racist and he gets his ban reduced from one month to 5 days? The "history" spoken of is a history mostly of him baiting me and me taking the bait. If this is justice, I need to reevaluate whether Wikipedia is worth the efforts I put into it. If you're asking me to restrain from comments against other editors, sure, I not only admit I've made a few comments that have been taken the wrong way but I agree that these comments are unwelcome and I will not make them anymore... with a caveat. I do not agree that the current ban is in any way, shape, or form justified. I do not feel that the "racism" claim is justified and it WAS mentioned and highlighted on the ANI complaint so I reject that it did not play a part in my 1 month block. Finally, I do not believe that my accusation of harrassment, trolling, and stalker-like activity by the other editor was a personal attack. If I get unbanned or my ban reduced, it will not be because I've agreed to the baseless reason I was banned this time. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to think that racism somehow played a part in your block, doesn't bother me. It didn't, but it hardly matters, as it's pretty clear you're not going to decide to join the ranks of collaborative editing. I'm certainly not going to unblock you, and am pretty close to extending your block to indefinite, as stated in both the block template and my secondary warning below that. Tan | 39 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, I do not perceive any racism and personally don't believe that comes into play either way...

I'm speaking in generalities regarding how you & any editors get along and not specifically TSC. In a nutshell, what I believe is required is simply a tempering of language and a more stoical approach to editing. When you think that someone might be messing with you, remember to remain civil, refrain from any forms of attack and don't feed the trolls. Really good advice can be found on Template:Civility.

Admins look for repentance and your promise to improve. Your protests would water down and dilute the sincerity..so I wouldn't suggest that you make them. I believe that you DO have a lot to offer to Wikipedia and I would like to see you mitigate the circumstances towards improvement. Try to remember that honey catches more flies than vinegar and you will go far with that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ZuluWebley.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ZuluWebley.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)