User talk:Thatguy96

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Mk 11 mod 0, SPR, SAM-R, recon rifle

Jesus H Christ! Thanks a ton for updating the SPR page and for writing up the SAM-R page. I knew I didn't cover everything in enough detail for the SPR. I also had no clue the SPR photo I put up was an MSTN clone.

Good to see some info on the SAM-R. You have any idea where one would go to get that gas block?

Thanks again,

Tin soldier 01:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GShG-7.62 minigun

Why the remame?, The GShG-7.62 IS a rotary barreled weapon and is the Warsaw Pact equivalent of the M134 and works the same way as a Minigun but has 4 barrels instead. Classing the GShG-7.62 as a Minigun would make it easier to describe and refer to that type of weapon.

EX STAB 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because Minigun is an informal "class" at best, and to my knowledge is not a term used to describe the weapon by those who built it and use it. This is the exact same reasoning I put forth in the discussion section of the article itself. The term "minigun" is one of two things, an informal name used to classify all rotary barreled weapons of rifle caliber, or a specific name applied to GE's line in particular. The Russian weapon in question is not the latter, and should not be title with an informal name primarily used by video game players. Its a rotary barreled machine gun. That's why my suggestion is that the article be renamed to GShG-7.62 machine gun for clarity. Calling it a "minigun" will only serve to confuse people who will then go to the minigun article and see there that it says its not. -- Thatguy96 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

seal recon rifle

do you have a source or something for this article? I'm unable to get anything in a directed google search. I'd also like an image of the rifle. I know some of the companies involved, but I haven't heard of this rifle outside of this article. Avriette 02:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For research

• This is a good article I came across on the 500: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3623/is_200212/ai_n9153100 Ve3 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

yo

Yo homes. You know your sig is misspelled? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're talking about, so no. I was unaware I had a signature of any sort on this beyond the ones I could mispell myself when editing discussions.

do you type your own signature when you edit discussions? or do you use ~~~~? I had noticed one place it was seplled "Thagtuy96 or something like that. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Id

Hey, do you know what the optic on this is? I don't recognize it. Ve3 03:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A Marine scans with a M16A4 in Fallujah, Iraq (Dec 04);

ITL MARS, there was a small purchase by the Marines, and one's just popped up in a picture with the US Army.

Great, thanks! I will add info to pic. Ve3 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

AC-54

I didn't revert your removal, but you might want to reconsider, here's a ref that lists such an aircraft. Akradecki 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Never mind...I found that there was an AC, but it wasn't a gunship, so your removal was entirely appropriate.... Akradecki 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Project Blackspot

Were you involved in Blackspot? My father was the supervisor of the night shift in the avionics shop. He was a staff seargeant, but his GS rating was something like GS-9, so he was in charge of higher ranking NCO's. Do you know if it's declassified or not? I've been interested in talking to someone else about it, but I don't know about its classified status. I can email you a picture of a Blackspot patch to confirm my credibility and give my name and father's name. He won't tell me much about it. Billy Blythe 01:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I was in no way connected with Black Spot. All the information I have is publically available. I would hold off on sending me any information as I don't know how sensitive or not any of it is. I was actually in the process of trying to see if there were people in the USAF who might have some additional information. I had emailed the historian at the White Sands missile range about a drop test on a submunition device that seemed to match one in description often linked to Black Spot projects. He said his records didn't show the aircraft type, but forwarded my queries on to others. I have been meaning to send another email off to them to see whatever happened to that, as this was some 2-3 months ago now. Sorry I could not be of more help. -- Thatguy96 19:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the two aircraft of Project Blackspot did not survive. It had its rudder shot off, managed to land at Ubon RTAFB, and exploded on the runway. The entire crew perished. I too have tried to talk to USAF historians and they deny knowledge of the project, probably because it involved bombing Laos and Cambodia. I can probably tell you more than the Air Force would, but I don't know if it's declassified or legal. --Billy

Its odd really that they're so secretive, because the aircraft appears in unclassified designation handbooks, both under the AC-123K designation, and later under the NC-123K designation. Also, this story is interesting, because the prevailing wisdom was that both had survived, been returned as much as possible to a transport configuration and returned to appropriate elements in SVN to assist with the perpetual shortage of appropriate aircraft. I should actually send that Email I was talking about to them to see whatever happened with my query, because it was directly related to this, but without actually stating that IIRC. I'll keep you up to speed if I find anything, but please keep me informed as well as to developments on your end. This is getting more interesting than I had really expected. -- Thatguy96 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to post something odd. I was convinced one of the four or five pictures of Black Spot aircraft that exist were of both airplanes after the supposed demodification, which would challange the validity of the story that one was completely destroyed. This is not one of the pictures. The only demodified picture is of a single aircraft. The only picture of both of two Black Spot aircraft is dated August 1971, at Davis-Monthan AFB, which shows two relatively beat up AC/NC-123K. The odd thing is that one appears to feature a replacement rudder, and neither of the camoflage patterns match that of the aircraft provided by the USAF of the demodified aircraft. Now, this could be as simple as the aircraft got a new paint job after being demodified, but if it was designed to return to transport elements, this seems odd, since none of those aircraft were painted in this manner. Were there 3 aicraft instead of two? Did the demodified NC-123Ks continue to serve on more secretive projects (Heavy Hook/Heavy Chain?). I don't know, but there seems to be far more questions than I initially thought about. -- Thatguy96 17:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting side note on this, found a picture in an online gallery of an all black C-123K that appeared to be associated with Heavy Hook/Heavy Chain. The guy who took it said those queried about it were adimant that it was actually a UC-123K, and that they were not forth coming about any other info. The Heavy Hook/Heavy Chain connection comes from the fact that the aircraft was supposedly piloted by ROC contract crews, most likely for the CIA. -- Thatguy96 03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You're 100% correct about the C-123K. It's getting late and I didn't read the fine print on the display sign. Thanx for catching my mistake.
v/r
Peter Rimar Chitrapa 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, easy mistake, just saw it and changed it. You would've got it I'm sure. -- Thatguy96 03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

M113 - Gavin?

Hi, I'm not defending the POV changes that have been made to the M-113 page, but the Simon Dunstan book on the M-113 had some commentaries from soldiers in Vietnam and one of them referred to it as a 'Gavin'. To be honest, I wasn't sure where it came from, and I'm in no way saying its an official name, but its possible that it was an unofficial nickname at one point. Just thought you might like to know. Cheers. Douglasnicol 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Gavin is the least of my concerns with the user's edits. If you look at the complete content of what the user (I believe it is Mike Sparks himself) changes it clearly does not fit with Wikipedia's POV policies. I blanketly revert his edits on these grounds. By all means if you have a citation you can put it in with appropriate language, unlike this user's blanket statements. -- Thatguy96 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll dig the book out, I wasn't arguing with your edits by the way, since I understand the POV rules. Douglasnicol 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand that, but since anyone can read this, I figured I'd make it clear what the context was. I would myself be very interested in what Simon Dunstan's book has to say just on an academic level. -- Thatguy96 17:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Gavin has become the unofficial nickname of the vehicle by now, at least in the US. It won't spread to other nations for obvious reasons - why would they name a vehicle after a US general ? Rhetorical question.

Another point, which I wanted to ask you about, and perhaps a little OT:

"Just another point, you'll note the Israelis aren't buying much of anything brand new in the AFV department. They didn't contract anyone to churn out the new heavy APCs from scratch (all of the major types being based on first generation MBTs), and the M113s are also quite old at heart."

I consider this as a major strength of the Israelis ( and the Taiwanese, btw, who maybe are even better at taking old tanks and refurbishing them to meet the latest demands at minimum overall costs ) - they improvise things and as a result their improvisations end up to be better than any competitor that was "built from scratch." There really is no competition whatsoever for these IDF APC built on old MBT chassises, now is there ? Or look at their uparmored and modified versions of the M113, the "Kasman" in particular, being designed for urban warfare. It kicks the Stryker's ass in any regard - cost, maintenance, off-road mobility, air-liftability, air-dropability, amphibious qualities ( OK, cancel that - the M113 Kasman would probably sink to the ground due to the add-on armor, I'll give you that ), maneuverability, etc.

Building something from scratch is always harder and more fault-prone - and fatal faults at that - than improving already existing, battle-proven concepts.

I always deemed that to be a particularly American character trait as well ... to stick to what's good, and make it even better, if possible. Think about the B-52, the 747, the (Sportster) Evolution engine of Harley-Davidson, the concept of PCs ( full downward compatibility ), etc.

But apparently this philosophy has given way to a mindless "newer is better"-idiocy. No, it ain't. Better is better - the mere fact that something is new says nothing about its qualities.

I would appreciate some feedback of yours - why do you favor the Stryker ? Do you seriously believe it is superior to a up-armored and modernized M113, which would come at a fraction of the cost of a Stryker, and yet equal or surpass it in all regards ?

Write me at axel.bavaria@gmail.com

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For you huge body of military and weapons related work, but especially for your contributions to U.S. Helicopter Armament Subsystems, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Keep up the good work! --Sharkface217 18:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

M1919A4 in 7.62x51

fyi

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=76882219

plenty of Israeli M1919A4's in 7.62x51

best!

Izaakb 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the M1919A4 is still not technically a 7.62x51mm weapon. I removed it, despite the numerous conversions (including the US Mk 21 Mod ), because of the fact that it was unclear and could become a source of confusion. -- Thatguy96 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your latest edit is most appropriate. Just because it was converted doesn't change that it exists, and indicating it was converted from .30-06 is very useful. The Israeli M1919A4 is still widely in use and IMI has produced all new parts for them. Izaakb 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Colt AR-15 Variants

Wow! Thanks for those edits, that's a lot of valuable information. Did you want me to Wikilink all of them, or is there a reason why you didn't? Hayden120 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was too impatient and just Wikilinked them. Took a damn long time; maybe I need some sort of automatic editer. I think it would be better if each Wikilink took the viewer to the exact location in the article for that particular variant. These edits would probably have to take place over time because it would probably a fair amount of time and effort... Hayden120 10:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't wikilink them all because I didn't think there were necessarily appropriate articles for all of them, since many are just export variants, and aren't really discussed in the articles. What Colt "names" an M16A2 or M16A3 really has nothing to do with US military nomenclature, which is why I didn't link them to the M16 article. Meh, it can stay that want until there are more appropriate articles. -- Thatguy96 14:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please help me keep an eye on this page as I have a feeling a lot of incorrect changes are going to be made, and not be detected by the rest of the community. It is not always easy to tell if the new edits are correct or not, especially if they don't even leave a note for the reason (preferably with a reference) in their edit summary. Thanks. -- Hayden120 06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In movie black hawk down we seen colt model 733 carried by delta operators but there is another model carried by some delta operators such as Eric Bana charector SFC Norm Hoot , what was that model ? a friend of mine told me it was 727 but this model had bottle neck barrel just like the M4 while hoot's gun had a straight A2 barrel ..so i suspect in model 723 . can you verify which model it was 727 or 723 or other model , thanks --Max Mayr 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

here is a link showing the gun : http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/EricArchives/Films/BlackHawkDown/Behind-The-Scenes/BHD-BTS-035.jpg --Max Mayr 12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Its odd. I know this question has come up a number of times in various places, and I can't seem to remember the answer. Still, the most important thing to remember is that its a dramatic movie, and therefore the guns are props, regardless of their functionality (ie, real, fake, airsoft, whatever). This prop actually appears to have a straight A1 profile barrel, given how its visible smaller in diameter than the muzzle device. The A2 rear sights and third generation stock suggest it could have been a conversion of some type by a prop company from a civilian legal weapons, such as a late model Colt AR-15 Lightweight carbine (R6530). Not being able to see the roll-stamping on the magazine well which would explain it for sure, I'm going to go with the likelihood of this being a non-standard prop gun. -- Thatguy96 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well , thanks but why cant be model 723 ? --Max Mayr 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well in your response you said "hoot's gun had a straight A2 barrel ..so i suspect in model 723." I assumed you had checked this against the listing. I actually do have it listed as having an A1 profile, so if that's accurate than you're right, there's no reason why I can't also just be a 723. -- Thatguy96 23:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK , i check it again the 723 had A1 barrel as you said so i would go with model 725B which according to the list had S-1-F group , A1 rear sight and A2 straight barrel which fit with Hoot's gun . --Max Mayr 10:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a picture to the M725B : http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/m725b.jpg --Max Mayr 10:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if we're going to start using a prop site as a way of judging we can go back to my original statement about this being a prop in a movie. I remain convinced that the picture you provided to me shows an A1 barrel, not an A2. -- Thatguy96 12:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case it must be 723 . I tell you the truth I dont know what is the difference between A1 and A2 barrel , I thought its like the barrels of M16A1 and M16A2 rifles respectively , as an eastern european ( SLOVAKIA ) Iam more familiar to Russian weapons but Im trying to be more modern by learning more on american systems ..ok --Max Mayr 18:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of Coax M240

Hello, you made a change to the M240 article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M240_machine_gun&diff=156986310&oldid=156977213

The caption which you changed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M240_Coax_on_USMC_LAV.jpg

was directly copy and pasted from the Department of Defense's website: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0001277&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2000/Marines/DM-SD-00-01277.JPG Even though this weapon clearly has a pintle and is mounted where the commander's gun would normally sit, it is not clear whether or not this weapon was moved into position in order to more effectively clean the M240, since you were not the photographer of this image nor the Marine in the photograph. You can't stake this claim and say with 100% certainty what the photograph is showing is indeed a M240E1 or is indeed is not the coax machine gun; therefore we must rely on the official caption of the photograph. Please do not change the captions from official DoD photographs. -TabooTikiGod 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, the official USMC line on the LAV-25 is that it has a single M240 coaxial machine gun, and a single M240E1 machine gun mounted on a pintle. I don't care what the official DoD caption says, they're not always right, its mounted on a pintle about the turret, which violates any standard definition of "coaxial" when talking about AFVs. I changed it for specifically that reason. The caption is confusing because its inaccurate. -- Thatguy96 21:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not argue that the DoD is always 100% correct when it comes to captions however in this case, I feel that it is unclear and not without uncertainty that you can guarantee that it is for one a M240E1 and not a M240 nor if it's indeed the coax or not. -TabooTikiGod 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can debate whether its an M240 or E1 or another variant, that's fine. Its unclear because the weapon is partially diassembled. However, it is clearly not the coaxial gun, because it is mounted in the pintle above the turret. The coaxial gun on any AFV is mounted coaxially with the main gun. The coaxial MG on the LAV-25 is in the turret, coaxial to the 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon. I see absolutely no scenario where the coaxial gun would be mounted in the turret pintle for servicing. -- Thatguy96 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you see the M242 Bushmaster cannon in this photograph? I think not. It is feasible that the weapon was put on the pintle for easier access for cleaning and maintenance. The evidence of this photograph can not be argued for or against this fact. Like I said, the only thing we can go off is the from the caption. -TabooTikiGod 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it just seems to be arguing against common sense as well, since the coaxial gun is obviously removed as well. This would mean the pintle mounted weapon was removed from the pintle for servicing, and the coaxial weapon removed from its mount and then rigged to the pintle for servicing instead of following the coaxial gun to a work bench. While you're right, I can't argue that this isn't what happened, it seem to me totally ludicrous that this would be the mainenance policy. -- Thatguy96 21:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually noticed that as well, the coax missing and for that very reason I thought that perhaps (in a not-so-logical-method), this Marine decided to do just that. Remove the coax and mount it on the pintle for service and maintenance. Too bad we can't jump into a time machine and go to that very spot and ask this guy what he was doing but it's not feasible that this was the scenario, which I think you could agree. -TabooTikiGod 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Operation Shed Light

Hello, As i said earlier only minor changes are needed. I read through the article and it it met 4 of the 5 criterion. The only minor problem I saw was the reference section. References and Citations need to be combined into a single section. Try making citations a sub topic of References. When your done with that bring your article to review for more opinions. Marcusmax 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, alright, thanks. I had based it on the way it had been split up in the article Operation Igloo White, which has been assessed as A-Class. I can combine it into one section very easily, but is this really necessary? -- Thatguy96 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you have made the changes, you now meet all 5 criteria. Good luck Marcusmax 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Seal recon rifle

I Have a picture , if you are interested email me on hectortrojan1193@yahoo.com .--Max Mayr 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xm706m1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Xm706m1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 15:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern US Inf Weapons Nav

		The Template Barnstar
		Very nice template, nice work Deon Steyn 07:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added some tweaks (discussed on it's talk page), but nice work for creating the nav box: Template:ModernUSInfWeaponsNav. Oh yes, check out user pages like mine or User:Kirill Lokshin for moving sticking your medals on your front page ;-) --Deon Steyn 07:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and your minor edits are great as well. -- Thatguy96 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Your article, Operation Shed Light, has been reviewed for a Good Article. Unfortunately, it is currently lacking in one or more aspects of the criteria for a good article. Comments have been left on the article's talk page. Please feel free to contact me as soon as the problems have been fixed, and I will sign off on the article. Thanks! JKBrooks85 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a lot. I will get on those issues as time allows. -- Thatguy96 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Drop me a line when/if you've made the fixes and I'll sign off or make further suggestions. Good luck! JKBrooks85 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week since the review. I like the changes you've done, and I'm going to sign off on the article. As it is now, however, I don't think it's worthy of an FAC. I'd suggest reworking the article for flow and readability and making another thorough grammar check before even thinking of trying an FAC. The article's great fact-wise, but the presentation is somewhat awkward. That's just my view of things, and I'd suggest a peer review if you think I'm wrong. Those are usually a great way to get others' opinions, but it can take a while as there's usually a backlog. JKBrooks85 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you're right, my schedule has just been absurdly busy as of late to devote time to my hobbies :(. I agree fully that the article needs more work. Thanks. -- Thatguy96 17:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

H-3 official names

Please provide reliable sources for your claims that the HH-3F's official name was "Sea King", not "Pelican", and that the HH-3E was officially named "Jolly Green Giant". I have read souces to the contrary on both counts, and will be checking my books to see if I can locate the cites for that. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's according to DoD 4120-15.L Model Designation of Military Aircraft, Rockets and Guided Missiles, dated 1974, 1998, and 2004. I'll put the references into the articles. You can download them here: [1] -- Thatguy96 03:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't trying to be contentious, just had read different. Those are the official sources, so end of issue. Thanks for the link - I love reading through docs like that, just for the historical info. - BillCJ 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, I should've sourced them in the first place. My fault. -- Thatguy96 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

UH-1 Article

Hi there. Your sandbox work looks pretty good. I understand the direction you are going there - the main article variants would be cut down to an outline and some details, and the variant details would go into the Variants article.

I think you have made a good start there in that direction (it would probably help you if I didn't keep editing the UH-1 page, eh?) The only concern I have with what you have created is that there is still a lot of overlap in the variants section beweeen the two articles. Perhaps it needs to be virtually deleted from the UH-1 article and concentrate on the operational history, etc, there?

I still think that the development history of the UH-1 is the history of its variants and that if you split them out to another article then you really have to remove that section entirely and just put in a "see variants article" tag instead. The main thing I am concerned about is that other editors will come along in the future, see the details are sparse and then flesh out more details over time on the UH-1 article again. Then we will have a mess that can only be fixed by either merging the two articles (!) or else deleting the whole development section and putting it all in the variants article.

It maybe worth pointing out that there is a history here - the UH-1 and UH-1F/P articles were once separate and were merged. That is how I came to add more details to the other variants - it made it look like the "F" was the only model worth discussing!

-Ahunt 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

Could you please explain more fully why you changed the main image on AC-47 Spooky from a picture that showed the plane's guns to one were the guns were masked by the wing?

The picture you preferred could by ANY C-47. Surely the main image should show the armament?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it better shows the entire plane, instead of simply highlighting its armament. There seems to be an assumption that people know what any C-47 looks like as well. In a vacuum I would prefer a better picture that shows the entire aircraft as well, but one that shows the entire aircraft. As it stands now you have one that shows a C-47 in the SEA over black camouflage pattern only found on AC-47s (EC-47s were SEA over a light gray of some sort, and would be otherwise obviously different; some select VNAF non-gunship C-47s appear to have worn this scheme, but that seems to be relatively rare compared to the bare metal, white top, and SEA over white/gray), plus on closer inspect it also features the "Spooky" nose art. We just need a better picture in general. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, so do I. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:SPR-A Profile.jpg, Image:Mk12 Mod0 Profile.jpg and Image:SPR-B Profile.jpg

pls add any sources thx--Sanandros (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, unless someone else has a source for those, they might not actually be PD. I put those up over 3 years ago and to be honest, I don't remember where I got them from exactly. Those pictures are so common now on the net it might be hard to discern for sure. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very bad 'cause I wanted to upload these pics on Commons but they'll be deleting very fast.--Sanandros (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I was under the impression that they were official pics, but I'm not sure where they came from. I'll check some files I have lying around tonight to see if its at all obvious. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

CAR 15

Hi, glad you have an interest in weapons and weapons systems. Studies and Observations Group carried CAR-15s in the field. When the Navy SEALs were redeployed out of South Vietnam they were nice enough to donate their Stoner systems to us at Command and Control North MACV-SOG. We always held them in very high regard for that, and for being kindred spirits.

Today you seemed to have arbitrarily deleted the following from the info on the CAR-15:

"In the Second Indochina War, the CAR-15 was the standard weapon carried by U.S. Army Special Forces troops and their indiginous commando allies operating out of Studies and Observations Group."

Let's get it worked out to be more informative. Thanks. Keep up the great work. Best Regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit came along with a comment that explained it. The deletion was not arbitrary. The only known operational use of the CAR-15 Carbine was by US Navy SEAL teams. US Army Special Forces and elements assigned to SOG are known to have tested the CAR-15 Submachine Gun, and later the CAR-15 Commando (XM177 series). I have spent a fair amount of time researching such things and have found no indication that the CAR-15 Carbine was utilized by these forces. Note, the term CAR-15 often gets misused or confused, as it refers to the entire CAR-15 weapon system, not solely the XM177 series. I have no doubt certain first person accounts refer to a "CAR-15 Carbine," but I also have no doubt that these refer to the XM177 series (Colt 609/610/629), not the actual CAR-15 Carbine (Colt 605). -- Thatguy96 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

T-37 Tweet Specs

Thanks for adding the T-37 specs. I sat down tonight to do that, and you had it completed, and it looks good too. I split off the A-37 about this time last year, but I didn't realize until today that the T-37 was still showing the A-37 specs. THanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Saw your message that you wouldn't mind if someone else tackled it, and I knew where to find some stats quick. Still not complete, so if your sources conflict or have more then you might want to edit it to make it more complete/accurate. Squadron/Signal books are known for various typos right. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:3 M60 gun.jpg

Hi, I have nominated this image for deletion on Commons - [2]. Kevin (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- Thatguy96 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal of C8 Rifle

Hi, I've noticed that you put the {{merge}}tag onto the C8 Rifle. I have removed it after 5 months of discussion and there was no consensus. Any Response?; H2H (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that 5 months of no consensus in my mind does not mean in my mind that a merge proposal should be removed? Or that it was 4-4, two of the opposes were based on inaccurate observations (even if "the C8 [was] a scoped Carbine" that would not be grounds for a split; the comparisons to the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine and M16 and M4 carbines were also not comparable for the reasons stated in the comments), the third oppose was based on the inaccurate assertions made in oppose comment #2, and the last one was based on the assertion that the C7 and C8 are "completely different weapons," which is also totally inaccurate. So my response is that the merge should have gone ahead simply because the grounding of the opposition was not based on real facts, understanding, or readily comparable instances elsewhere on wikipedia. I also took the liberty of looking at your contributions, and I don't see any history of editing military or weapons related articles in the last 1000 edits, so I'm really not sure what your level of understanding of the system is or why you felt the need to lend your vote to the oppose side. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"I don't see any history of editing military or weapons related articles in the last 1000 edits" - in order to head off any criticism of yourself, could you detail on this talk page or on your user page your military expertise? You're clearly interested in military topics, so you must be an expert on the subject. Tell us about your qualifications to edit so many military articles; are you in the armed forces, do you make or design weapons yourself? I know you have lots and lots of edits on the topic, you must know a fair amount from direct experience, rather than reading Jane's a lot and also internet forums etc. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to immediately apologize for being snide, but I'm not sure how I personally could respond to this without it coming out at all. Firstly, I want to say that I questioned the editor's knowledge on the subject based on their posting history and prompted a response to the question you yourself are posing. I did not say they obviously did not know what they were talking about, but that I was curious as to their level of understanding and why they felt the need to chime in in a discussion where it appeared to me they had limited knowledge. Secondly, according to the guidelines developed by the wiki firearms project, subvariants rarely if ever need their own pages. The people who responded in opposition to the merge had a concept that the C8 did not fit this definition, which was wrong.

Based on this, I feel no need to head off criticism of myself, because I was not asking whether or not the other editor was an expert as a requirement to chime in on the discussion. They asked me for a response upon taking a unilateral decision to close my merge proposal based on an arbitrary understanding of an acceptable timeframe to have such a thing open. I responded by challenging why they felt the need to tie the vote and what their level of understanding was, especially since this just seemed out of form since they had no history of being involved in these discussions. This was to further prompt a discussion on the issue. In some cases people have differing understandings of the history, and therefore have a differing understanding of wiki firearms guidelines, which is reasonable. I still have no idea why the editor felt the need to chime in, since they did not respond to me. It could have been reasonable and based on just as much "experience" as I apparently am required to have to make a determination on the subject, but I just don't know, which is why I asked and provided a context for my questioning.

In response to your question, no I am not a military veteran or weapons designer. I, like most people on wikipedia, make a large number of edits based on indirect research rather than direct experience (which is inadmissible when editing wikipedia without a verifiable source). In fact, a large amount of direct experience would, according to the overarching wikipedia guidelines, give me no greater authority to edit than anyone else (one of the reasons why I stopped editing it, because of the constant need to revert and edit people who were mistaken or willfully trying to insert incorrect statements). Ironically, I work for Globalsecurity.org, which means I can cite myself, since we are treated as a reputable source (which I think we very much should be). I am not, however, an "expert" in the terms you have outlined. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

UH-1 variants references

Good job referencing the UH-1G and E/UH-1U entries. The fact tags had been there a while and I could not find anything on those in my books or online. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I had been sitting on Dennis Buley's site for sometime, just never got around to fixing the ref. The UH-1G entry I added because of that ref in the first place and then never cited it. Only had myself to blame on that one. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• All good now though. :) Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Air operation

Hi, User:Tplusplus just created some news articles about the Vietnam War operations, so could you check them to see whether it's an air operation or not. If it's an air operation, you know what to do, thank. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion of edit to M16 rifle

Hello. I noticed you reverted my removal of incorrect and uncited material from the M16 rifle article with no explaination. I'd like to know why. Thanks!--Patton^t/c 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The US Army uses both the M16A4 and M16A2. Didn't think this needed an explanation. The M4 has largely been substituted in current operations, but units could easily convert back to their A4s. The US Army hasn't gotten rid of them, they're just sitting in arms rooms all over the place. The A2 is pretty much out of service with the exception of various rear area units and reserve/guard elements that haven't converted yet. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stryker vehicle controversy

The article Stryker vehicle controversy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Section that linked to this was deleted.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Stryker vehicle controversy for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Stryker vehicle controversy, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stryker vehicle controversy until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Marcus Qwertyus 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Stryker vehicle controversy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stryker vehicle controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Stryker vehicle controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Marcus Qwertyus 18:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

M4

who officially regards it as an M4 ? just interested who the actual offical body is, cos I've never heard of it being called that, since it's derived from an assault rifle how does making it a carbine turn it into an SMG ? ☭ мдснєтє тдлк^ЅТЦФФ 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not say it is derived from an assault rifle (an ambiguous term). The US Army's official nomenclature is Carbine, 5.56mm, M4. The official nomenclature for the XM177 series is Submachine Gun, 5.56mm, XM177. These nomenclatures are in many ways arbitrary. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Its a short barrel M16 though...doesn't that make it derived from an assault rifle? and isnt carbine a subgroup of rifle ? (which smgs definitely are not)(reading down the article - this disagrees)(which i think could be confused with the Colt 9mm SMG). It uses an intermediate cartrige (a smaller rifle cartrige, the kind that an AR is defined as using) and not a pistol cartrige like smgs use. Since when was the US army the worldwide authority on gun nomenclature ?

you're not trying to say "it's an SMG" are you ? you're just saying "the army calls it an SMG for some reason therefore we have to call it that" but do we ? that article is called CAR15, the civilian name, so the article should focus on the gun itself not what the army calls it? I dunno - I'll leave it all alone its too confusing for me. BTW an IP editor has changed it back to AR ☭ мдснєтє тдлк^ЅТЦФФ 05:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The M16's official US Army nomenclature is rifle, not assault rifle, and you're right that carbines are a subgroup of rifles. The official designation for the XM177 is submachine gun, whatever the technical definition of SMG is. The M231 is also officially designated as a submachine gun. Since the alpha-numeric element is in the US Army nomenclature, there's no reason not to use its technical designation. Furthermore, Colt and the US Army both referred to the Model 607 as a submachine gun, regardless of the technical term. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)