Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:30, 1 July 2009

	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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#Flag icons guidelines. Please let's discuss there. —Michael Z. 2008-12-12 17:01 z

Linking complete nouns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stoner 63 vs. Rodman SAW

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

Oh my, Mr. Kokalis best check his dates. Why then were the Ordnance people prejudiced against the Stoner system? What led to the dismissal? Koalorka (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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

FWIW: The port pressure conflict between M193 (loaded with Ball powder) and M196 (loaded with IMR) couldn't have surfaced before April 28, 1964 at the earliest, as the US Army didn't approve WC846 powder for use with Army-issue M193 until then.

The 1965 SAWS report from the US Army Infantry Board indicated that prior to the SAWS trials, the Army had only conducted military potential tests of the Stoner 63 on behalf of ARPA. At the same time, the USMC had conducted its own service and troop tests of the Stoner 63. According to the USAIB report, the Army's pre-SAWS testing had indicated that the Stoner 63 MG was marginal in operating power and deficient in barrel life. However in November 1964, the Army Materiel Command ordered the Army Test & Evaluation Command to initiate engineering and service tests of the Stoner 63. However, the planning for these tests were postponed in order to coordinate them with the requirements of the SAWS trials ordered by the Army Chief of Staff. (The USAIB was subordinate to TECOM, which itself was subordinate to the AMC.)

In their 1966 SAWS program report, Combat Developments Command Experimentation Command specifically blamed many of the Stoner 63 MG's malfunctions on the port pressure conflict, as well as a batch of defective belt links and insensitive primers. (CDCEC was not part of the AMC. As the name implies, it was part of the Combat Developments Command, which was on equal footing with the AMC and the Continental Army Command.)

According to the 1968 "Report of the M16 Rifle Review Program - Volume 11," the Army's Assistant Chief of Staff for Force Development submitted a fact sheet to the Army Chief of Staff in September 1964. In the fact sheet, Army Weapons Command had claimed that the Stoner 63 family had insufficient barrel life, weak belt pull, stock breakage while launching grenades, insufficient operating energy under adverse conditions, and unreliable tracer functioning in the machine gun. (WECOM was part of the AMC.) The same 1968 report states that in January 1968, the Army Chief of Staff wrote to the USMC Commandant agreeing to a joint testing program for the Stoner 63 MG.

All three of these reports should still be available for free download through DTIC, although they may no longer display the download links. If you run a search for the XM207 on Google Books, you can find references to it in congressional appropriation hearings running through FY71. (Oddly, they only give a snippet view. It isn't as though the hearing transcripts could be copyrighted.) The timeline for the final USMC/AMC tests of the Stoner 63 are covered in the 1972 GAO report "Need for Improved Financial Management in Use of Project Orders by the Department of the Army". It wasn't solely about the Stoner 63, nor did it specifically ID the system as the Stoner 63. But seriously, how many rifle/carbine/MG families existed during the late '60/early '70s that were also being tested by the AMC on the USMC's tab? This report was also available online at one point from the GAO website. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 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) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

TKIV

Hi, Koalorka. I moved your proposal to the "contested" section, since the move was proposed back in Sept. 2008 (I actually closed it as "no move", but I don't have an opinion one way or the other). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

CETME L Development

FWIW: The CETME L first appeared in the 1977 edition of Jane's Infantry Weapons. Odds are, CETME started development before then. They are known to have started SCHV rifle research in the early 1960s, and collaborated with HK on the 4.6x36mm. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, they had been developing a short cartridge version of the Model C since the mid-70s. I'll amend the intro. Koalorka (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, would you happen to have in your posession any literature confirming official Spanish service dates for the type? I've got a series of conflicting sources. Koalorka (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I'll check. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

MPM's pics on Misplaced Pages

Well, he takes the images specifically for IMFDB, but I showed him a watermark design I built (see the Series 70 1911 picture on his page). The only image he released on here was a CETME 5.56mm MG42 design, but I personally prefer my watermark over the one he used for that image. I'll see what he says, but I think he would prefer if his images stay on IMFDB. - Gunmaster45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Douglas A-20 caption

Hi K, the way I usually punctuate a caption written as a sentence is to apply full punctuation; if the caption is a statement or is a fragmentary sentence or non-sentence, then, it is not treated as a sentence. FWiW, the caption in the aforementioned article does not have a verb, but it can be re-written as a sentence. Bzuk (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

help

well i m here asking for help i m new to wikipedia n dont knw many of the rules. what i edited in those articals were lines which were anit-indian in an artical about india n those lines carried referances from pakistan based websites if not edited by user with name Zuhayer171288 whom i find vadalising indian articals perticularly about indian army/system.I request you to please go through all the articals reading each and every line which i edited before you jump to conclusion wheather those edits should be reverted or not and wheather i should be reported or not. one more thing i find you to be from canada with interest in USA,Germany and serbia, will you consider referances from a russian or chinese websites in a USA related artical to be neutral? or referances from polish or dutch websites in artical about germany or german national football(soccer) team to be neutral? or referances from albanian or croatian websites in a serbian artical to be neutral, I guess your answer will be a big no similarly how can you consider referances from a pakistani website in an india related artical to be neutral?I hope you got my point and ll look up into this.(Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

This has nothing to do with India. The Arjun is a failed design and many Indian editors refuse to accept the project's many failures and mishaps out of nationalistic pride. Koalorka (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Patton 22:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Lunde SR9 Green Frame.jpg

If you created this media file and want to use it on Misplaced Pages, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Misplaced Pages respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

File:AirForce M249.jpg listed for deletion on Wikimedia Commons

An image or media file that you uploaded locally, File:AirForce M249.jpg, which was transferred to the Wikimedia Commons, has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. Please see the discussion to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Wikimedia Commons is a central repository for freely licensed media used by all Wikimedia projects, including Misplaced Pages. Please be aware that policies on Commons are different than what is used on Misplaced Pages, including rules only allowing images that can be used for any purpose, and that images must be free or in the public domain in the United States and its country of origin (if different). File:AirForce M249.jpg Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC) --Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Army's Weapons Inventory

• I have no idea what you are talking about, try elaborating a little further. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide sources documenting Mexico's national weapon inventories. Koalorka (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Lunde SR9 Green Frame.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lunde SR9 Green Frame.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Laser brain (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:StG 77 mit AG-C.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:StG 77 mit AG-C.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Saddo

Oh sorry... God you're sad, you spend your life studying guns, get a life, who cares about my name change, it's the proper name for the weapon anyway, so don't act like a teacher, obssessive control freak #rolleyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07ed01 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Super cool story bro. Koalorka (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Koalorka/Userboxes/No-Turkey

User:Koalorka/Userboxes/No-Turkey, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Koalorka/Userboxes/No-Turkey and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Koalorka/Userboxes/No-Turkey during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –xeno 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. ^ Withdrawn. –xeno 02:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Some guy (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Some guy (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)