User talk:Thernlund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  NOTICE: If you talk to me here, I will reply here.

[edit] Funny...

...I tinker with Smith & Wessons and you follow me around fixing GLOCK... er... Glocks! (grin) Deathbunny 06:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

HA! Well... we each have our lot in life.  ;-) Thernlund 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just another rifle

Just another rifle has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this information might not be verifiable. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability for the relevant policy. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so, citing reliable sources.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The information isn't verifiable because it's supposed to be a secret. But I digress. I'd say go ahead and delete it because there's nothing meaningful in the article. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trigger

I apologize, I think I was mistaken in my reverting. The way I was reading this sentence "In a small majority of firearms, the thumb or other part of the hand actuates the trigger." was that some part of the hand is used, not that some part excluding the index was used. I should have read it more carefully, or better yet rewritten it. Sorry about reverting your edit. Vicarious 05:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It's been taken out of our hands now anyway, eh? I was just confused as to your position on the topic. (My original comment here for those paying attention.) Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant muzzle v figures for .45 ACP loads?

I didn't add that stuff, but I thought it contributed to the article, by giving some idea of the performance of the cartridge with various loads (fired out of what, would have been nice-- I assume a 1911). So why remove it? How's it redundant? Where else in the Wiki is this info? Did I miss something? Cheers. SBHarris 02:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The data is in the infobox. But no biggie. I put it back. Also moved some stuff to make it flow better (IMO, of course). Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good! I like that solution. SBHarris 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding GLOCK/glock

The other half of this discussion is here for anyone paying attention.

I'd thought it was for a month anyway, so that's all good. Anyway, if you wish to archive the discussion, go ahead. Just don't delete the discussion itself so people have some idea of what it is we're talking about. Gamer Junkie 06:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good. Go right ahead. Gamer Junkie 13:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the marketing addition. It has absolutely nothing to do with my reasons for wanting the proper terminology to be utilised, but leave it if you wish. Gamer Junkie 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. The reason I didn't resist its addition is that I thought somebody may have actually brought that up in another area of the argument, so it's fine. You'll notice I've added most pressing reason for wanting "GLOCK" used. Now we simply await further input, I suppose. Gamer Junkie 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There are too many people who are more than happy to throw a policy or guideline in your face and do as they please with little regard for the opinions of others. So good work for taking the time to do things the right way. Gamer Junkie 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thernlund, I hereby award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for proving to me that there are still editors on Wikipedia who conduct themselves in a civilised and diplomatic manner in the face of total opposition. Thanks for going that extra kilometer to ensure that things are done properly and honourably. Gamer Junkie 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knock it off with the anime/video game removals on weapon pages.

I don't see why you discriminate against removing video game/anime references from gun pages, but not movie references. Who gives a damn about video-game/anime references? More like "Who gives a damn about movie references?" Casull 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Video game and anime dipictions of real firearms are completely arbitrary and subject entirely to the authors imagination. In these dipictions, performance, appearance and history are 100% non-relevant. This is less true of movies, where real armorers are onsite to supply real weapons. I don't add these references myself, but when done cleanly and properly by others I usually will not remove them. Game and 'toon refs I will though, and I'm not the only one who does by far. In fact, most others who scrub these entries will usually remove ANY ref to pop-culture. Thanks for the note though. -Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox work

For your excellent work on improving {{Infobox Firearm Cartridge}}, I award you this barnstar. Kirill Lokshin 05:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Great work on getting the new autoconversion code in (and cleaning up all the existing uses!). Kirill Lokshin 05:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Thernlund! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .45 ACP

Yes, box contains enough data range that ballistic section can now go, for all of me. Thanks. SBHarris 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thanks for the input! —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cartridge template

Thanks for the template Thernlund. Would you be interested in joining the WikiProject Firearms? We could really use members. Thanks again.--LWF 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Suuurrre. I'm up.  ;-) —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikiproject Firearms. Feel free to help recruit new members and make suggestions. LWF 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Glock

Thanks for adding my name to the list. Guess I missed that. PubliusFL 06:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I try to stay on top of it so it's no big deal.  ;-) —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marlin Model 1894

I understand why you did what you did to this article, but I thought it looked better and was more informative with the original layout. Would you mind terribly if I put it back the way it was? Jeff dean 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I didn't really think that it looked bad necessarily, but I also didn't think it fell in with other firearms articles on Wikipedia in the old format. I guess I would mind a little, but not enough to argue over it. We could ask for a concensus for others? I could set that up on the discussion page and post an RfC. Then we wait a bit and make a change based on group concensus. Yeah? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I created this page and you and I are the only ones who have edited it. I hope you will allow me to place a large photo on top. It's such a pretty gun and it's a good photo, I would like to see it there. Jeff dean 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes -- nice text box!! Jeff dean 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the big image seriously detracts from the look of the article. I feel that it should go back in the infobox. The M-1 Garand is pretty sexy too. But placing a giant image at the top of the page makes it look sloppy. It should conform to the look and feel of other firearms articles on Wikipedia. I realize this may be a pet article for you (I have some myself) so I won't revert you, but I kindly urge you to replace the image back to the infobox for the sake of continuity among firearms articles. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your forebearance. I appreciate your willingness to step aside on this. I will, therefore, consider your recommendation. Perhaps, in time, I will come to agree with you. Jeff dean 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glock/GLOCK discussion

Well, I suppose consensus has been reached and is clearly in your favour. Oh well, you win some and you lose some. That's just how it goes, eh? I can't really argue this any further, so I'll just add that you may wish to put, for example: Glock 22 (styled GLOCK 22), as appears in other articles utilising common usage guidelines (Product Red for example).Gamer Junkie 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Good idea on the article note. I'll see what I can do. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutually assured destruction

Hello Thernlund,

I would like to discuss the following point you brought up, but if you don't want to, that is fine also. I won't bother you again.

You wrote over at Project Firearms talk at 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC): "I absolutely do not and completely reject the idea that the world would be better without guns."

I assume the "not" is a typo, or you would be agreeing with me.

"The world would be better without those individuals who seek to use guns during violent criminal acts against those who cannot defend themselves. In my opinion, in a world where guns never even existed, crime and violence would still exist in the same levels they do today. You'd have traded one type of violent crime for some other.

I think you may be right. Certainly the wars in the middle ages were most brutal, and the more recent Rwandan Genocide left about a million dead, mostly through machetes.

"But, in a world where EVERYBODY had a gun (or even any means to extremely efficiently defend themselves), mutually assured destruction would certainly reduce violent crime, and likely crime in general."

I think this is an interesting notion. I read a science fiction story describing exactly that. If everybody had the (fire)-power to stop anybody else, the theory is that nobody would dare threaten or injure anybody else. I think it might work if also embedded into a strict code of conduct, e.g. that anybody seeing a wrong being done would be obliged to correct this. On a national scale this is what the NATO, Warsaw Pact, League of Nations and UN try to do. It did seem to work for a while in the Cold War. At present I believe it doesn't work in general, neither on an individual nor on a national scale. People are just too irrational and prone to hasty and wrong descisions and value themselves and their clans more than the common good. So are nations which have instilled large powers in few individuals. People and nations think they can get away with murder, and often can. Mutually assured destruction doesn't work because things tend to escalate and many people don't even care if they die, e.g. suicide bombers. What we really need is things which are very effective as defense and not very effective as offense, e.g. the force fields in science fiction. But they would have to be very effective, or others would simply build bigger guns and bombs. Guns are unfortunately more offensive than defensive. This is why I think we should try to get away from them as much as we can and develop other means for defending ourselves. This probably means imaterial things such as knowledge and law because in the physical world it is much easier to destroy than to maintain. This is what fascinates me about Wikipedia: it increases knowledge for everybody (literate and with access to the internet or a computer) and has developed enough checks and balances to prevent it exploding into a mess. Sorry, this has gotten too long; please delete if you wish. I'm trying to understand your way of thinking in case I write something over at gun politics as you suggested--Theosch 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the "not" was not a typo. You said "I hope you'd agree". I said, in essence, "I do not agree, and I also reject the notion...".

As to you understanding my position, I am certain you do not. You do go on about people, but yet you blame the gun. Tell me this...

• Suicide bomber takes out a cafe in London. Blame the man? Or the explosive he used?
• Terrorists hijack a plane a run it into a building. Blame the hijackers? Or the plane they used?
• A man beats his wife to death with a bat. Blame the man? Or the bat he used?
• A prison inmate shanks a fellow inmate over cirgaettes. Blame the inmate? Or the shank he used?
• A man robs a convienience store using a gun, and shoots the clerk. Blame the man? Or the gun he used?

If you can read between the lines on these and see what I mean, then you get my way of thinking. If you still cannot see the point, then it's a lost cause I think. However, if you can see my point, but STILL blame the gun, that speaks to a fundemental difference in our respective views of the world. If this is you, then I have this to say...

Even if you are a solid anti-gun lobbiest, and want all guns completely abolished, you should be thanking God that us gun owners are fighting for our right to keep guns. You see, we are the front line. We have the target on us. We fight for our right so that "they" have their attention on us, and you can go about enjoying whatever rights you enjoy. If "they" ever get past us, and succeed in taking away our freedom to peacably and lawfully own and use guns, then the dam has broken. You see, it was us gun owners stemming the tide. We "drew the fire". Now that we're out of the way, and a freedom you don't care about has been taken away from all of us, now "they" will come after another freedom. Maybe one you DO care about. It is not about the gun. It's about the people. It's about freedom. If "they" succeed in taking one freedom, no matter what that one freedom is, they'll succeed in taking the next.

There's my way of thinking. My advice to you... buy a gun and become part of the solution instead of a bystander, or worse, part of the problem. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I did misunderstand one sentence: no typo. Our main disagreement seems to be: is the gun or the person to be blamed for any misuse? I would agree with you that it is mainly the person, shown by the presumption that most gun owners are responsible people and do not misuse them. However I do think that "the gun" does lead to misuse by some people simply because of its physical characteristics: projecting a high speed bullet is of more use for offensive than defensive action. The opposite would be shields: almost entirely defensive. Why are guns popular, but not shields? Because they are cumbersome, unpractical and no fun.

Your second point concerns freedom. I agree with your concern. "Use it or lose it!" However absolute freedom would only be possible in a perfect world. Most tools invented by mankind do not require control and thus may be freely used. Some tools however are very powerful and therefore must be controlled. This includes motor vehicles, dangerous chemicals and biological organisms and most weapons including guns. Ideally only responsible people would have access to these things, but of course the irresponsible people want them as well and many people are sometimes responsible, sometimes irresponsible, and everybody is irresponsible some of the time. Therefore all these powerful tools create casulties. If society regards them as excessive, the controls are tightened, if not much happens, the control is relaxed until something happens again. This is a feedback loop which we just have to live with. If I understand your concern correctly, you are worried that with too much control, the irresponsible people end up with the powerful tools and the responsible people don't have them. I share this concern for many areas of the world, but not for stable democracies, where I feel the opposite is the case.

Thirdly you regard gun-owners as a kind of shield for the non-gun-owners and the latter perhaps as "freeloaders" or even as part of "the problem". I would agree that some gun-owners do have this function, mainly police and armed forces, who are given their powers by society. I do not agree that extensive private gun-ownership creates security and suspect rather the opposite, as statistics seem to show that areas with low levels of gun ownership have low crime levels. Of course it is difficult to know which is cause and which is effect, but the statistics I am aware of do definately show that gun-owners are more likely to die by being shot than non-gun-owners.

Anyway, I guess I'm not going to convince you any more than you will convince me. I'll just say I respect your position even if I don't agree with it and thank you for taking the time for this discussion. --Theosch 10:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I read over your comments twice and considered every point within the context of the entire post. At the end of each reading, I came to the same opinions...

• I don't want to wear a Kevlar body suit every time I leave the house. Carrying a gun though, MUCH easier. Really, why shoud I be put out because some jackass wants to harm me?
• I believe that a gun is designed for offense, which thereby increases it value in defense. If someone thinks I'm going to end his life if he tries to harm me or my family, he will be GREATLY discouraged from doing his evil deed and move on to an easier target. Either that, or he's a total moron, in which case he'll be a Darwin Award recipient real soon. Outcome... I'm safe either way. Win-win for me.
• I agree somewhat with the statment about cars, dangerous chemicals, and the like. But consider this... I could buy a car without a drivers license (ever from a dealer!), I could buy dangerous chemicals without a hazmat license, I could grow Ricin, one of the singular most deadly biological toxins in exisitence, with nothing more than some library books and a bit a free time. I'll even go as far as to say that with enough money and effort, I could probably obtain nuclear material in a reasonably short period of time. Once I have that, a trip to Home Depot and a couple hours later, I'm armed with a WMD. I find myself wondering why guns are the hot button. Pfff.
• There are already checks in place to prevent guns falling into the wrong hands. Over the past year I've probably purchased 10 to 12 firearms. In all but one case, I had to fill out a form and clear a background check. The one case where I didn't was a private sale. But all the things I mention in the previous point fail the private sale test as well. Again, why are guns the hot button?
• Although you don't say it, you imply that maybe we should license gun owners as we do drivers. Maybe. I wouldn't support that, but I don't think I'd fight it either if implemented just right. It's a slippery slop though. Extreme caution would be a must.
• Statisics? In 2004, Washington D.C. ranked #1 for violent crime in the U.S. by a long shot, with 3 times the homicide rate of the next closest state (Louisiana). D.C. has for all purposes completely banned all firearms. Is there a connection? Who knows, but I'm inclined to think so.
• I think I implied that gun owners are the ONLY front line. Not my intention. I should have said that we're ON the front line, protecting your (and my) freedoms. Other groups are out there doing it too. Although it begrudges me to say it, the first group that comes to mind are the "pro-choice" folks. I'm against abortion, but the pro-choicers are doing for freedom exactly the same thing gun owners are, and by that I mean fighting for a right. I DO NOT mean someone should get an abortion for the sake of excersizing the right! I do mean that they are defending an unpopular right so that the ones that ARE popular (for now) stay safe from infringement.

I can probably form some other opinions too with some more thought, but we already know that we don't agree. So it is what it is. So long as we both do what we truely believe to be the right thing in our hearts, we can do no wrong. Beside, the FBI has probably flagged me by now so I better just cram a burrito in it for the time being.  ;-) —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with much of what you say and see we have more in common than was first apparent. My outlook probably comes from a basically happy life. I've never been treated to or even threatened by serious direct physical violence of any type, and neither have any members of my family. So I am easily able to assume good faith not just on Wikipedia but also in life. If violence were to happen to me or my loved ones I expect I would change my attitude.

I think it boils down to your statement: "If someone thinks I'm going to end his life if he tries to harm me or my family, he will be GREATLY discouraged from doing his evil deed and move on to an easier target." I think there is a logical fallacy there. I think "he" will simply try to catch you unawares, i.e. shoot first. He might even decide to shoot you preemptively just in case you have a gun (if it is concealed). In a society where gun ownership is not common, "he" will however most probably harm you less in trying to achieve his objective, e.g. steal something. I think it is noteworthy that in Britain, tresspassing is not a crime. A land-owner is only allowed to ask an intruder to leave, certainly not to threaten him or her. Thus the law in Britain obliges the land-owner to assume good faith regarding the motives of an intruder. He may, for example have been looking for a short cut, wanted to retrieve an object inadvertedly projected onto the property, etc. In contrast, I believe some states (I think Florida) in the USA allow not just land-owners but indeed anyone to kill preemtively even if only feeling threatened. For me this is totally unacceptable and I will certainly not set foot into Florida until this is revoked - even if I realise that the odds of being harmed in this way are not large. But just as you don't want to wear a kevlar suit I don't want to have to wear a disarming smile all the time I'm in Florida. Thus Florida's law is counterproductive: it loses a "good" citizen, i.e. potential tourist, and thus decreases the ratio of "good" to "bad", the opposite of what was attempted.

Rereading this all, I can see that there are situations were MAD works and - I believe more numerous - situations where it doesn't. I guess the best thing we can do is to think carefully about what we do both beforehand and afterwards. --Theosch 09:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Logical fallacy? Hmmm... I don't think so. It certainly is an assumption based on observation of human nature, and as such it won't be true 100% of the time. But I think it will be true most of the time. Comes down to path of least resistance. Human nature is simply that whatever your endevor (a violent crime in this case), you will take the path that most ensures your success based on a balance of effort, risk, and potential gain. Really, if you're going to do a crime, aren't you going to do the crime you think would be the most successful? If some jackass has the nuts to come after me specifically, KNOWING I'm going to plug him, then...

a) I must have something that in his mind is really worth risking his life.

b) I must look like a victim in waiting (ie. an easy target).

c) He's a complete moron.

d) Some combination, or all, of the above.

If that's the case, then the entire argument is moot, eh? He'll try, I'll take him down (I hope), and that'll be that. If we were both targeted for a violent crime (assuming potential gain was about the same), and the crook knew that you were armed and I was not, don't you think I'd be the first choice?

Look, I know it's all based on assumptions and educated guessing. Bottom line, for my part, is that I'm no victim. I am a law-adibing citizen who will use deadly force should it be required. As a free man, the task of knowing what "required" means should be left to me and not dictated to me as if I were a child incapable of such comprehension. As LWF points out below, even a justified shooting has concequences. Old Ben Parker was a smart man. "With great power comes great responsibility". My responsibility is to know when I am allowed to threaten deadly force, and when I am allowed to use it. For I will have to explain myself in any case. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I retract the logical fallacy, as I don't even know enough about it to decide whether it might be an informal fallacy (gosh, quoting Wikipedia is fun!). Let us say that we are involved with a form of game theory and sometimes it will go one way and sometimes the other. All we are arguing about is the relative likelyhoods, but I certainly can't offer a proof for my intuitive feeling. The other point is statistics. Here also there is a great range of interpretation of what might be irrefutable facts. I'm sure we could both find pro-gun and anti-gun statistics. I'm also sure we can picture peaceful societies where everybody or where nobody has a gun. It's this in between which is so hard to pin down.

What worries me is this: society is getting more brutal in Europe. More violence, especially from male adolescents. Most of them don't have guns, or even knives. They just get drunk and hit and kick people, but injure them none the less and enjoy doing so. What would happen if these guys - or their victims or both - had guns??? Would there be more or less violence? Or less violence but more deaths? I might add that in some countries these guys are jobless, hopeless losers, in others they lead respectable "day" lives and turn into "monsters" at night. Anyway, thanks for your hospitality here, Thernlund. I guess it is about time to leave you in peace.--Theosch 12:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel I should point out that Florida passed that law in response to a large string of rapes and burglaries. The result: rape and burglary dramatically decreased. I should also mention that the Castle Doctrine also applies in other states, namely Texas. I live in Texas and I feel perfectly safe, assuming I stay out of some areas where people are known to participate in certain illegal activities and use all manner of implements to do so. One lesser known fact about the Castle Doctrine, is that even if you were completely justified in shooting a person, you will be required to appear in court, and justify your actions. If it was arbitrary, you are in serious trouble. If it was justified, (e.g. he had a knife in his hand and he was bashing down the door to get in), you will still have to pay for a lawyer and such, which will end up costing several thousand dollars.

Trust me, you can go to Florida all you want and you will be fine. Now, if you were to start doing something violent, such as breaking and entering, you would be shot, but if you obey the law you'll be fine.--LWF 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Maybe the law works better than I gave it credit for. --Theosch 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .50 BMG Infobox

The data you added to the .50 BMG lists case length=.391 in, overall length=.545 in. This seems off. Perhaps the decimal should be moved? --Eyrian 06:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. Fixed. Thanks. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

for cleaning up on the Swiss gun politics page. --Theosch 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcomed. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Springfield Armory Revert

You're welcome. I figured that's what it was. Kudos for all the work you've been doing on the S&W... er um Smith & Wesson articles, I need to do one on the history of the Model 52 (and 52-1, 52-2, 952) :) --Mike Searson 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colt 2000

Thanks for helping with the Colt 2000 page!--Mike Searson 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a prob. I just happened to spot it. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Thanks for the help with the vandal.

Any idea who this loser is? I ran his IP and am following up with his ISP.--Mike Searson 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I was just RC patrolling with VP and happened upon him. I put in a request for blockage, but an admin did it 2 minutes before I posted the request. Things happen fast around here sometimes. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok...I thought it might have been some gun related article one of us might have reverted on him. He must have seen me talking to you on your user page and got it into his skull jelly that I was an admin or something. Probably ate too many paint chips as a child while playing in the dirt outside his trailer. --Mike Searson 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webley Revolver/Lee-Enfield

Hi Thernlund,

Please don't remove the "Popular Culture" section from the Webley Revolver or Lee-Enfield articles- they've been accepted as valid commentary on the notability of those firearms, and not merely lists of trivia or film/TV appearances. I appreciate the work keeping clutter to a minimum, but don't be too hasty on the delete button, eh? ;-) --Commander Zulu 08:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. No prob. I'd suggest removing the game stuff though. Computer games can't really be taken as an accurate representation of pretty much anything, don't you think? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Some mentions of computer game appearance are warranted, mainly because the SMLE and Webley so rarely appear in computer games. But an exhaustive list of "every obscure piece of anime in which someone has (gun type)" would indeed be un-necessary. It's a delicate balancing act, though. --Commander Zulu 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your consideration...

I have been wondering recently, "Should an award be created for the Guns Wikiproject?" Now that Hipocrite has left us, the project should be around for a while more, and an award may be worth consideration. After all, we are nearly half the size of the Weaponry task force, and it might be nice to recognize outstanding work. Since you are more experienced than I, and would likely create the actual award, I wanted to broach this subject with you first and gauge your reaction. Perhaps the "Flak Jacket" or "Bulls-Eye" may be appropriate. JVkamp 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... not a bad idea. Lemme work something out and I'll let you know. Might be a few days though. I kinda have alot on my plate right now. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a "Trophy" of some kind? --Commander Zulu 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox selection

I shoot Colt's Python

I am a Python fan, so I like the ones with the Python.

This user is a member of WikiProject Firearms

Here's another:

Jeff dean 01:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the "Reeducation of Zumbo" edit.

I've done a good bit of searching for evidence of the article in question but haven't found anything. However I have found a reference to Kendall Hemphill at the website of Texas Fish and Game [1] which reads in part: "Kendall Hemphill is a bit difficult to classify. Although ostensibly our new news commentator, communicating with him is like trying to have a serious conversation with Uncle Fester from the "Addams Family." For instance, he sent two versions of his biography--an "interesting" one and a "truthful" one. Below are elements from both. See if you can tell which is which." [2] Regarding the "reeducation of Zumbo" I still suspect satire. Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated. -- Rydra Wong 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd reply here, but you posted the same thing here and there. More appropriate there I think. I replied over there. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your recent Wiki help formatting the refs. BruceHallman 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nooo problemooo.  ;-) —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)