User talk:Winged Brick

You must not want anyone to leave a message. This talk page redirect to your user page. And the user page redirects to your talk page. If that's really what you mean to do, then revert this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. Actually, I was playing to see what it would do and didn't fix it yet. Wasn't as cool as I thought it would be. Did you have a comment that I preempted with my experiment? --Winged Brick (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in particular. Was just looking at your pages and noticed that redirect thing. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before redirecting/deleting entire pages, it is generally considered proper to open a discussion on the talk page of the article in question, e.g., mousegun, and even post a merge tag on the article pointing to a discussion for a period of 5 days or so, building consensus. Otherwise, one editor's unilateral decision to delete content is viewed as vandalism. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really wasn't aware that "Mousegun" contained content of any significant value beyond the pejorative definition. --Winged Brick (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only part of Bowning's 1893 patent which was carried forward into the Model 1912 was the reloading carrier: the bolt and trigger lock were all Johnson's.--Solicitr (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This replacement stuff the IP user keeps adding to the M16 article is mainly about replacing the M4 Carbine. So I don't think that belongs anywhere in the M16 article. Just thought I'd point out another reason to remove this stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen you've been keeping the vandals at bay, appreciate that, but some of your other edits are a bit cryptic and confusing. What for isntance do you mean by "firearm" "Rifle" and "Weapon" not interchangeable" in tke AK-74 article? I used that wording to diversify the vocabulary, make the article seem a little more publish-worthy. Koalorka (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms are not just weapons, though, they are tools. One cannot use the term "Weapon" to completely describe a firearm. It's not only imprecise, but it adds a usage connotation when the VAST majority of times a firearm is used, it is not used as a weapon. The term weapon is somewhat pejorative in this instance implying that is the tool's primary use when it so clearly is not... even in time of war. --Winged Brick (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I'm all for abolishing the incorrect fear-mogering media phraseology on semi-automatic sporting arms in civilian hands, but the AK-74 is a selective fire weapon of the Red Army, there are no illusions there, we aren't going to start sanitizing basic facts. I see you are a relatively new editor, read the WP:Firearms directives, eyeball the talk page to get an idea about standards and policies and remember to discuss before introducing dramatic changes. Welcome aboard. Koalorka (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and elaborate. It's a logic thing. While the AK-74 is USED as a weapon, that doesn't necessarilly make it a weapon. For instance, a knife is a tool that is sometimes used as a weapon. In fact, knives are the prefect analogy. If you have an article on knives use the term "weapon" instead of "knife", you are implying intent. Weapon has an imlication of usage that goes far beyond the reality of the situation. A sword is a weapon. A grenade is a weapon. An assault rifle is occasionally used as a weapon, yes, however it is much more often used for target practice... when we go down that road we are ignoring the basic fact that a rifle is a tool and has no predetermined usage requirements. For instance, if I collect rifles, those rifles are not weapons anymore, they are ornaments. Does my collecting change their nature? No. What of hunting, target practice, or flare projecting? Do those activities, all possible with firearms, change the nature of the firearms that are used for these purposes? Think "Sniper Rifle". What makes a sniper rifle different from a hunting rifle or a self-defense pistol? The nature or intended use of a firearm are irrelevant to the basic design and function of a firearm. A firearm is a tool used to accelerate a projectile... THAT's IT. A rifle stabilizes the projectile by spinning it. A weapon is an useage for the rifle that is in no way implicit by its design. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is fine with civilian firearms, I'm not going to go into semantics about nomenclature, that is something for the entire project to determine, not the two of us, but literature worldwide refers to military small arms as weapons, and that's what we will continue using interchangeably until a consensus against that is reached. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To draw a distinction between firearms based on "civilian" and "military" is not productive either. They are rifles first, sometimes weapons. Much like men are humans first, rapists sometimes. Just because a man is designed for sex does not make him a rapist. There does not need to be a concensus against using "rifle" in place of "weapon" in the AK-74 or any other article. I'm not asking that you agree to removing every instance of "weapon" and replacing them with "rifle" and "firearm", only that you don't remove them when I do unless it's inappropriate. For instance, if it reads, "The AK-74 was the weapon used to kill Osama Bin Laden." This is more appropriate with "weapon" in this instance because the sentence is describing the actual usage of the rifle as a weapon. As an analogy, saying, "Mahatma Gandhi was a peace activist. The rapist was an advocate for Indian independance." Just because men can be rapists does not mean that all are. Just because AK-74's can be used as weapons does not mean that all are. It's crystal clear to me, but I can understand where you are coming from. --Winged Brick (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circular logic. You don't need to preach the tool vs. weapon argument to me, I'm an advocate of civilian firearms ownership, I know every single such analogy I use against the "grabbers". I ask you not to politicize technical gun articles with sanitized phraseology. I will not ask you again. The AK-74 was designed from the ground up to incapacitate or mortally wound enemy personnel effectively. It is not a sporting rifle, target rifle, plinker or training instrument, even though it can be used as such. Hell, you could even use it as an entrenching tool and the Galil as a bottle opener. Going around and changing every military small arm description to "high-velocity projectile lobbing instrument" or "bottle opening self-loading rifle" is absurd. Common sense my friend. Koalorka (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not using the phrase "bottle-opening... etc.," I'm using the word "Rifle". "Rifle" is a succinct and narrow. It clearly defines to a broad audience exactly what we're talking about. Less clear would be firearm. Even less clear would be gun. Further down the road somewhere in another county is the term "weapon." Substituting a succinct, narrow, and universally accepted term for a vague, broad, and prejudicial term ("weapon") seems like the right thing to do. Since it's only you and I speaking about this, we could ask for a third opinion. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase, "I ask you not to politicize technical gun articles with sanitized phraseology. I will not ask you again." It seems like a threat, but I don't see this as a situation where you should have to argue for "weapon" as that is a very vague term. It's especially not anything to get upset about. --Winged Brick (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to come off as hostile, nor am I upset, just a few comments. Koalorka (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. --Winged Brick (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per [1], what modern U.S. weapons is that cartridge used in? The only thing I see is a German sniper rifle not used by the U.S.--Patton123 15:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M86 McMillian bolt action. Long-range sniper rifle. It would be proper to put a citation needed tag on it, not just remove it unless it's dubious or absolutely wrong. Of course, you'd have to find a reference.^[1] --Winged Brick (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but how was that advertising? Its a fellow wiki like this one. Advertising would be "hey everybody come buy my guns at Amazon.com. Not telling people about a wiki. SteelersFan-94 18:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're advertising your web site. The Firearms project is for improving Wikipedia, not personal gain. --Winged Brick (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at WP:OWN, the same goes for that wiki. does User:Jimbo Wales own Wikipedia just becase he created it? No. I'm reverting it because I've been on Wikipedia for over three years and I know the guidelines very well. Have a good day. SteelersFan-94 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously got a point to make. Your assertions do not change Wikipedia policy. You are spaming your web site here so it can get some recognition. That is wrong. Per Wikipedia's spam policy, your entry is unacceptable and, shall I go out on a limb, you seem to know this but you're doing it anyway. In fact, you put yourself out here as somebody with three years of experience at WP and somebody who knows the guidelines. Either you're doing this intentionally against the rules or you missed one. Assuming good faith, I'll just have you re-read WP:SPAM. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm just saying, you didn't look at WP:OWN, I don't own that wiki. Its one that has the same article's as this project. You obviously don't get it. There's no WP:Hunting project, that's as close as it gets.And what in the heck does "Spamming" have to do with this? Again I don't own that or any wiki! I SteelersFan-94 00:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]