User talk:Some guy

friendly cease & desist

Please stop edit warring. Pick ONE page to open the discussions about changing the section headers and then enter into a discussion without reverting anything else. Solve it through discussion. This message is a friendly reminder to avert the three revert rule. Better to discuss. Please don't shoot the messenger...leaving this for all involved parties. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where is the most appropriate location to have the discussion. Very few people have expressed their opinion on this matter; except for the two editors who keep reverting me without really discussing the matter, there have been five editors across different talk pages who have expressed agreement with my general efforts to improve structure, at least at the MP5 and SG 550 articles. User:Nukes4Tots has made no effort to discuss anything with me, and User:Koalorka has been extremely hostile and made several personal attacks on me.

My feeling is that repeatedly reverting my obvious good-faith attempts to improve the article by adding subsections (which are supported by the existence of the subsections template, WP:MTAA, and MOS) should be considered an act of vandalism. It seems to me that it is extremely inappropriate to revert instead of attempting to improve upon my edits. Do you feel it would be appropriate to file an ANI if the editors continue to revert my edits without discussion? Thanks for your input, regardless, and of course I will not shoot you. Some guy (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't escalate this to ANI just yet. I've been looking at some of the exchanges but haven't seen all of them yet. Give your postings at WP:GUN and Milhist time...it may take editors a while to comment if at all. I would suggest carrying the discussion between parties at WP:GUN. I don't have any comment yet about the structural differences and still paying attention to the various parties involved. If everyone can keep the discussion in one place it would help. I have to sign off soon (1:30am here) but will try to follow up tomorrow. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. A major problems is if I move some obviously misplaced text between paragraphs or add links to words that were not linked, and my edits are blanket reverted, I have to go through and make these changes again regardless of the use of subsections. As for discussion, there is Talk:Heckler_&_Koch_MP5#Excessive_lead.2Farticle_organization (and the section below it) and Talk:SIG_SG_550#Structure (and the section below it), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Comments_needed_on_structure_of_firearm_articles and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Article_Organization, though I see you've already looked at some of these. Some guy (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that User:Nukes4Tots deleted both of our comments from his discussion page and went ahead and reverted most of my work again anyway. At what point does ANI become appropriate? Some guy (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly alright for him to delete messages from his talk page. I'm confused a little because I currently see some of your structural changes are in place without them necessarily having reverted you (such as your changes on Heckler & Koch MP5). There appears to be some acceptance of your changes. Recommendation: I would alter your request to something more fundamental & shorter in nature so that you might illicit more input. It is possible that editors are not engaging because of WP:TLDR. I would suggest something along the lines of the short question, "Are the section titles listed in WP:MILGUN absolute or may some liberty be taken with them?"

I'm hoping to see Nukes4Tots or Koalorka state their reasons more articulately because there may be good justifications. If you repost, you might try inviting them to the party on their talkpages to a singular locale (your post) to try to isolate this discussion. They may or may not respond but you will have done everything correctly according to WP:BRD.

A concern: when you are changing section headers, are you checking for orphaned links?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots reverted my changes at M1 Garand, Thompson M1, and Steyr Aug. The two of them don't have any valid concerns beyond 'change is bad', which is why they are not discussing anything in depth. Should I delete the previous organization request section, create a new one, or what? Some guy (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Post a new one. I changed the Garand article back to your structure (I think) but I'm not looking to simply revert all such changes (Thompson, Steyr)...I'm hoping for dialog that will be productive. Personally, I don't feel that we should have completely rigid section titles but I remain open to what they have to say. De-escalation is always the better way to go. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. You did change the Garand article to my structure. I forgot to mention I've been mostly inserting subsections and moving paragraphs, rather than renaming existing sections, so there shouldn't be a big problem with broken links, but I'll try to check that later. I have to leave for work but I'll start the new section when I get back. Thanks again. Some guy (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka came back and reverted most of the rest of my work, and Nukes4Tots got the Garand article again. I am posting an ANI as they are not actually dicussing the situation and the personal attacks on me are making me outraged. Some guy (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

bedside reading & tea

Take several deep breaths. Then read WP:KEEPCOOL and WP:TEA. I've just poured you the glass. I think I hear the kettle...8^D
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am doing my best to keep cool, thanks. This behavior [1] is absolutely unacceptable. Some guy (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

tip

I noticed that you started an entry on the MILHIST talk page with ..."I tried to get this in but you edit conflicted me so now it's broken up."

If I've written a post of any significant size (3+ lines) then I highlight the text and hit CTRL-C to copy the text to the clipboard. If there is an edit conflict then you will be able to easily paste it into the edit box with CTRL-V.

Happy 4th of July!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The problem was I wrote the one line that was kind of an attack and submitted it, then I realized it was and I started editing again to write the rest and maybe tone that down, but the other guy already responded to it so it was too late to change the first comment. Some guy (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

Ok, I've had a cup of coffee and I shall do my best to outline my concerns in a civil and polite way.

It is not, in my personal opinion, appropriate you to come in to articles and make sweeping changes without first extending the courtesy of outlining your suggestions on the talk page. Minor stuff, the addition of cited facts, etc- sure, Be Bold, go ahead. But changing an entire article's structure? Common sense and basic courtesy, IMHO, says you let people know what you're planning to do first.

Secondly, I have read through your disagreements with Nukes4Tots and Koalorka and I disagree with findings at WP:ANI, and further I agree with N4T and Koalorka's opinions on your edits. I'm sorry if you think the MILHIST project is "Elist" or "Not welcoming to new editors". There's a reason for it- we put a lot of work into the various articles there. A lot. All those in-line references and cites have to come from somewhere, and that means someone sitting in front of the computer with a reference book page-hunting, cross-checking, and then adding it into the article. There's not many of us who can be bothered doing it, which is why there aren't many firearm-related FA articles.

So, when someone who is not "recognised" comes along and starts editing articles, the Red Flags go up. As I said on the other talk page, most of those edits (not all, of course) are, well, Not Very Good and have to be reverted. That, too, is a lot of work- I've lost count of how many times I've had to revert mentions of Captain Jack Harkness using a Webley revolver in Dr. Who/Torchwood because of the Pop Culture guidelines. Personally, I'd rather leave the information in there, but The Rules say no pop culture info except for the Approved Sort, so out it goes.

Of course, what that means is that, after a while (or several years, in this case) you do end up with a core of editors doing a lot of "behind the scenes" work and I'm sure you can agree it's only natural that there's going to be an element of protectionism involved there. And I really don't care what the official Wiki policy on "Ownership" is. If you start getting snotty because people don't fall over themselves in amazement at major changes you've made after appearing out of nowhere, they're eventually going to say "Sod it, I can't be bothered" and the articles won't be maintained anymore, which leads to... well, you've been on Wiki for a while, you've seen abandoned articles that have deteriorated because no-one is maintaining them anymore.

Look, here's what it boils down to: If you're not prepared to be part of the project, fine. That doesn't preclude you from contributing worthwhile edits to firearm articles. But I think it takes a staggering amount of cheek to try and tell the project how they should be doing things, and then saying you're too good to join when it's suggested.

Surely you can see how getting two prominent editors (ie, people doing a lot of work) blocked might not be the best way to endear yourself to other editors working on the related articles? You say they were making personal attacks, I see two very frustrated editors expressing that frustration (and nothing I would consider a personal attack).

Honestly, all you had to do was say "Sorry, I didn't realise you guys took it so seriously", take a few seconds to put your name on the List Of Members, and come back and say "Listen, I've had some ideas that I'd like to share, this is why I think them, and what do you guys think?" Wikilawyering is not the answer and is just going to piss people off. As you're aware, you need to gain a consensus. And that's going to be hard to do if everyone thinks you're a nuisance.

I think you have, in short, gone about it completely the wrong way (IMHO) and I really, really, REALLY think that instead of being a dick about it and stamping your foot and beating everyone over the head with Wiki Policies, the best thing to do is to withdraw the proposal, contribute in other areas for articles (feel free to add in-line references to articles or copyedit them, check spelling, and so forth), and them come back with a definitive proposal in a couple of weeks when everyone has calmed down and people can see that you're really keen to help.

I'm sorry if I've come across as being combative or unpleasant or Elitist. I am an Elitist, unfortunately. I really don't want to be getting into fights with people- you, or anyone else. Honestly, I'd much rather spend my time working on articles. But please, try and see this from my point of view and understand why I'm unhappy about the situation. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Before this mess I have never faced any troubles over adding subsections, nor concerns that adding subsections is a "sweeping" change. It is a straightforward change to organize the article and make it easier to read and most people accept this openly.

The fact that you disagree with the administrators and agree with Nukes and Koalorka indicates to me you have a very warped perspective. Your behavior is absolutely elitist, this should not even be an issue of contention. You have made ridiculous attacks about me saying I'm "too good" to join, and then repeatedly and viciously suggested my opinion is worthless because I'm not a member of your club.

Being recognized is completely irrelevant. A core tenet of Wikipedia is that all editors are equal. I'm not sure how you justify saying my edits were generally not very good - you probably missed the fact that EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS NOT YOU, NUKES, OR KOALORKA HAS SUPPORTED AND AGREED WITH MY GENERAL SUBSECTIONS ATTEMPTS.

"I really don't care about ownership policy" is just silly. Adding subsections is not a major change.

You continue to put words in my mouth and say that I said I'm too good to join, which is extremely immature, especially since you pretended to ask me "out of curiosity". I've never had any interest in being a member of any project; your (and Nukes' and Koalorka's) behavior does not make me excited about joining, and considering your hostitility I can't image that me joining would make anyone happy.

I haven't heard complaints from anyone but you about them being blocked. Calling me a troll is unacceptable. Calling me a novice is ridiculous. Accusing me of having a learning disability is extremely unacceptable. Nukes said "fuck you, you little shit" or something to that effect to another editor and was blocked for that behavior which was not even related to me. I actually refrained from "having Nukes blocked" because of our disagreement, and was asking a few people for advice and opinions as to whether he was displaying article ownership, before I discovered the personal attack while looking for an attempt at discussion that he deleted.

I don't kiss ass, particularly not in a situation this stupid. Excluding editors because they are not members of the project is unacceptable behavior. Actually I don't think I really need a consensus as my edits fit into the existing guidelines which state they are not rigid, but I am working on developing it anyway because of the behavior of users like you.

I'm not going to be bullied and intimidated, nor withdraw my proposal just because you disagree with it. Some guy (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I am not CZ, Koalorka, or Nukes4Tots, and I also agree with CZ that your reorganization attempts have tended to be overly confrontational and often without merit.

You are not playing well with others on this topic. You're assuming support among the community that I do not see, in general, and this is definitely not good editing etiquette on your part.

You are attempting to work changes through proper channels - but often attempting to find alternate channels if consensus in one is against you.

I agree that firearms articles could use being more consistent, but that does not mean you're the right person to carry the flag for a project to reorganize them. You seem to butt heads with other editors and with consensus a lot more than is helpful, and clearly more than is necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention of being confrontational until my edits were reverted, I was accused of trolling and vandalism, and I was forced to start a consensus discussion to satisfy the desires of two editors who believe they represent everyone. Where do you not see support? I see support everywhere, not universal, but a clear majority. There is no "consensus" against me or my ideas. I have no interest in fighting, my goal is to improve the articles, but you might notice there are a few editors (including yourself?) who are more interested in criticizing and devaluing me than actually discussing the substance of my objectives or give any reasoning at all as to how adding subsections hurts the articles. Some guy (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not just two editors - There are quite a number of editors that have warned you or cautioned you regarding your interactions with Nukes4Tots and Koalorka. Plenty of editors have disagreed with your proposals or your approach to arguing them. If you believe a majority of "interested parties" involved with the firearms articles or WPMILHIST support you unequivocally you are grossly misreading the situation.

I am not attempting to attack you or devalue you. If I believed you did not mean well, I would have blocked you indefinitely for disruption some months ago.

I have no objection to your working with the community to evolve things. However, you have proven that you are extremely effectively baiting at least those two editors on a regular basis. This is not appropriate behavior.

I do not disagree that either Koalorka or Nukes4Tots can and has misbehaved. They have crossed the line in the prior incidents. However, that does not absolve you of responsibility for taking the tone and confrontationalism of conversations to a point that drew them across the line.

Baiting people is explicitly covered in our civility policy. When you draw people into abuse repeatedly, and they do not engage in that abuse in a regular manner with other contributors, there is a pattern there and it's hard to avoid.

You have had a tendency to antagonize them and draw them offsides and then run to ANI. I want to put you on notice, now, that next time that happens I will examine your behavior leading up to it very closely. If you have been continuing to bait them and bear some responsibility for the degradation in civil communications, you will be held equally responsible for disrupting the encyclopedia. Disruption, even if it does not violate other policies, is blockable. And baiting behavior is a violation of WP:CIVIL.

You can continue to improve the encyclopedia without butting heads with those two, or others. If you continue to act in a manner that provokes confrontations, that is as unacceptable as what they have done in response. There's nothing gained by you doing so - it introduces administrative discussions instead of focusing on article content and the value of the encyclopedia.

Please do not take this as an attack on the content improvements you want to make. I believe that you mean well for the articles. None of the proposals you have tried to make has been with any evident destructive intent.

If normal conversations with them lead to one of them being rude without you provoking them, I will not blame you for that. But you really need to avoid causing confrontations. If you have pushed a button in the conversation you will be held accountable for that. If you've pushed a lot of buttons, even if you have done so politely, you will be held extremely accountable for that.

Normal editors manage to avoid more than a rare accidental irritation or aggravation of their co-editors. That is normal human social interaction. We expect and hope that our editors here will be as responsible and respectful on wiki with each other as we expect you are in real life.

If you can live up to that going forwards, there is no issue. If you continue as you have been going, you're going to find yourself unwelcome here, as much as Koalorka and Nukes4Tots are pushing the limits on abusive behavior now. I hope and expect that you can take this to heard and avoid problems in the future, rather than chosing to walk down the path that takes you out of the community.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have an extremely distorted view of the situation. Please don't start playing the 'everyone is against you' game without backing it up - please indicate for me all of the editors who have disagreed with my proposal. Please define 'quite a number'. What did I do months ago to warrant an indefinite block? How long is a "regular basis?"

It was never my intention to bait anyone. I have bent over backwards trying to be reasonably civil and not make personal attacks, though obviously sometimes they aggravated me and I was not always extemely nice and polite. They also refused to properly discuss the situation, as they continually attacked me as an editor instead of providing reason as to why my edits were wrong. They called them confusing and said I didn't have a right to make changes, and that was about it. They ignored my requests for clarification. Please indicate to me where I have been baiting anyone.

How did I "draw them offsides"? What does that even mean? I reiterate that it was not my attention to bait anyone; I gave Koalorka a tremendous amount of patience before I finally filed an ANI due to his incessant personal attacks after I repeatedly indicated to him that I did not like being attacked. I gave him warnings on his talk page and he denied that personal attacks had taken place. He still denies it.

My only objective was to add subsections to the articles. The fact that I was viciously attacked for it and forced to start a consensus discussion was not at all my wishes. I think actually going through with the consensus discussion to comply with their ridiculous demands shows my good faith.

Why don't you go explain to Koalorka what a personal attack is, as he clearly does not understand? Why don't you go tell Nukes that reverting other people's good faith edits and then deleting their attempts at discussion, while he continues to revert them, is very bad behavior? Why don't you tell him that "fuck you, you little shit" is not an appropriate response to being told he is boneheaded for repeatedly reverting without any more reason than "you don't know what you're talking about"? Why don't you tell Zulu that an editor's opinion is not invalid because he is not a member of a Wikiproject, and that proposing changes to guidelines is not impertinence and a waste of time? Why don't you tell him that asking me "out of curiosity" if I want to join the project and then savagely attacking me for "saying he's too good to join" is baiting and uncivil?

I appreciate your clarifications that you are not trying to belittle and devalue me. I also respect the fact that you have concerns with me and you are trying to address them, but I don't like that you make it sound as if there is an overwhelmingly negative response against me and everything I've done. Obviously not everyone supports every single word and action, but that's because everyone is a different person with a different perspective, but overall everyone who has actually participated in the consensus discussion has said they agree that subsections are allowed and needed (notice that even before being blocked, Nukes and Koalorka did not participate beyond Nukes attacking and antagonizing me a little bit), and only three users that I can see have outrageous personal issues with me. Some guy (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Other administrators have already talked to Koalorka and Nukes4Tots about their behavior. I am not going to defend what they ended up saying - I agree that it was rude and abusive. I don't need to repeat warnings and blocks that others already made on them for that.

That is not the point. The point is, whether that's their way of dealing with everyone, or if it's interactions with you which are bringing that behavior out in them.

Koalorka has had a history of snapping at people on and off. But he did that roughly once every six to nine months at a "serious" level before you came along. Nukes4Tots did not have a problem with abusing people at a serious level.

Again - This is not just my opinion. A wide variety of editors are making the same observation. I have, as I stated, been assuming good faith about your contributions here, which includes not having confronted you over apparent baiting behavior in prior incidents. I believed and still believe that you have the best interests of the project at heart.

If you think it's just me, and that I'm imagining the others' comments, I think that it would be instructional to you to look back across the various policy debates and talk pages you've contributed to actively over the last three or four months, and at the talk pages of the editors you're finding yourself in conflict with. I could create a list of dozens of examples and whack you over the head with it - but I'd prefer if you go look yourself. Your perception that you're doing nothing wrong is the problem here, and you have to find the evidence and convince yourself that you may not be entirely right. The evidence is there. It's easy to find. You will benefit from taking some time off and looking at it.

If you do that for a couple of days and still believe you're doing nothing wrong - I worry about your future in the project. If you think you're not doing anything wrong, you're not likely to change your baiting behaviors, and as I said, if those continue and there's another blowup you will be held responsible for your participation next time.

I do not want to chase you out of the project. What I want is that everyone has a chance to contribute positively and feels happy about that participation. However, you are having the effect of chasing several other editors out of the project now. If that was purely due to entirely civil and reasonable behavior and they were not provoked, that would be one thing. But many people feel you're provoking responses.

If you're provoking the problem, and the problem does not go away, then you will eventually have to.

Your response to me above indicated that you are by and large taking my comments here as some form of personal attack. I find that unfortunate. I am trying to treat you as an adult, to lay out the situation and the policy and show you where the conflicts are with the rest of the community. Administrators and editors are supposed to assume good faith, even of those who are apparently causing problems. In situations like this, we try and talk to the parties and give them plenty of information, feedback, and opportunities for them to correct the behavior problems. I cannot make you take this advice and feedback positively, but I hope you do so. I am trying to treat you as an individual and a responsible human being, and I'm specifically trying to avoid the content disputes and focus on behavior.

If you just get defensive and don't listen, it doesn't help you. Try to resist that, and listen to what I have had to say, and look around at other editors' comments on your participation.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that your edits in particular were no good. I was attempting to provide some insight into why a "regular" editor generally goes on alert when they see "(Name They Don't Recognise) +10,286" on their watchlist in relation to an article. Because most of those edits aren't very good. Try it. Take a really popular, high traffic firearm article (not one you're currently involved with) and watch it for a month, and see how many of the edits made to it by "casual" editors turn out to be useful or worthwhile. Not many, I think you'll find.

I have already apologised for getting a little heated, but I still feel it's unacceptable for you to appear out of nowhere, demand changes (and subsections of a Prescribed Type And Length are a major change, especially for the people who have to implement and maintain them), and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of making "personal attacks".

Less than six WP:MILHIST project members have commented on your proposals (myself, Kirill, Narson, and Nukes, and maybe one or two others). That's not a consensus. Even adding in the two or three other people who have appeared out of nowhere to comment, we're still not looking at a consensus.

I can see we're going to have some fundamental differences of opinion on this whole thing. I'm prepared to try and do the right thing by not getting too bogged down in off-topic disagreements over editing style, but as a sign of Good Faith it would help a lot if you could contribute more general editing work to other firearm related articles- especially because, as a benefit to yourself, it shows you've got some technical understanding of the subject, and you really do want to improve the articles (and not just wikilawyer or be a nuisance). Commander Zulu (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not added "+10,286" to any article. Your standard of "regular" editor is your own opinion and there is no policy or guideline anywhere on Wikipedia to back it up. The vandalism or "unhelpful" edits of any other user are not in any way relevant to my edits. I appreciate your apologize, but I still am not going to back down and remove my proposal because you consider me an outsider. I have not demanded anything, I have started a discussion to establish consensus.

You are using consensus as an arbitrary standard; I doubt you will ever be satisfied a consensus has been reached as long as people are agreeing with me. Whether or not the commenting users are project members is irrelevant and you have been repeatedly informed of this. "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." What are your reasons for why adding subsections is bad? The subsections are not of a proscribed type and length right now. How does adding subsections make the article more difficult to maintain? I will be adding the subsections myself, probably. Other users just have to take note of where some paragraphs may have been moved. I do not have to "prove" myself to you; my interest in editing firearms articles at this time is primarily in organizing them. Even if I didn't know anything about firearms, my attempts to organize the articles would reflect that the articles are not approachable for users who don't know anything about firearms. My firearms knowledge is broad, and I understand most things though I don't care to delve into memorizing all of the internal parts and how they work together - average readers will be even less inclined to do so. But placing paragraphs into sections that are labelled and inform the reader of what content is found in that section is much easier than digging through 1200 words of a single section trying to find a specific piece of information. Some guy (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, the "+10,286" comment was mild hyperbole about the sort of thing maintaining editors look for on their watchlists- "Gosh, this is a sizeable edit from someone I don't recognise. Better check it out." It wasn't about you in particular. The "unhelpful" edits of others are in every way relevant to your edits, for reasons I've already explained several times: The maintaining editors don't recognise you, don't see you on the list of project members, and will therefore default to "Alert" setting and assume your edits will be similarly unhelpful, this viewing them in a less positive light straight off the boat regardless of how helpful you are intending to be. You can complain about that attitude all you like, but that's just how it is, I'm afraid. Regardless of how you look at it, half a dozen people does not constitute "Consensus".Personally, I stay out of areas in Wiki that I have no interest or experience in- so, for example, I wouldn't contribute to a Consensus vote on changes to the WP:ASTROPHYSICS MoS, for example. And I'd like the same courtesy extended to me- if you're not actively involved in an area (project member or not), I don't think you should be given any weight in consensus discussions. Yes, that's my personal opinion and there's no formal policy to back it up, but there you go. Now, onto your proposal: My concern is that formalising an expanded list of Approved Subsections just complicates things. You should know (as you're so fond of Wiki policies, it seems) that once you create "guidelines" and "consensus" there will be people (not necessarily you) that use those guidelines to beat other people over the head with. So, if we create a MoS that says "Firearm articles should include an "Evolution" section, you're going to have incredible revert wars and fights over A) What constitutes and "Evolution" (or "Did Firearm X even evolve into Firearm Y?")and B) If said "Evolution" needs to be mentioned in the article at all (For example, I don't know if I'd consider the AKM an "Evolution" of the AK-47; they're pretty much the same gun subject to minor component differences). Also, "Postwar" is too arbitrary, IMHO. I'd prefer to see "Military" and "Non-military" use. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. To re-iterate: Absolutely no-one is objecting to having additional subsections in articles. What I'm objecting to is an expanded, formalised list of Approved Subjects. I honestly believe it's more trouble than it's worth. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you re-read my comments on the discussion carefully you might notice my repeated usage of phrases such as "if applicable", or the fact that I have been saying I think it may be more appropriate to just say that subsections are acceptable (and possibly have a words-per-section guideline). Evolution was actually based on the extremely long history section of MP 18 which has six paragraphs about the weapon's evolution/incorporation/whatever into newer firearms. "Military" and "Non-military" is not useful for articles where there are ten paragraphs on military usage. Maybe just "World War 2", "Korean War", "Vietnam War", or even "World War 2" and "Beyond WW2". Having guidelines to cite is better than being beaten over the head with baseless complaints about needing consensus to add subsections. Some guy (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Structure of WPGUNS articles

I removed the structure section you added to the Wikipedia Firearms project page, as it didn't appear to have anything to do with Firearms, being linked to something that was more about military bases. Not sure what you were trying to do, but perhaps you linked to the wrong place? Thanks. Yaf (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You looked at the wrong section. THe one about bases is below the one about firearms. It's called milGUN because it's about guns. Some guy (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. For some reason, when I clicked on the link, it jumped to the next section. No problem. However, WikiProject Firearms articles include many non-firearm articles. Have tried to incorporate the pertinent content here. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, no problem. I've had that happen before, where it kind of scrolls incorrectly when following a link to a specific subsection. The MILHIST guidelines states "The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss", would you like to add something to that effect to the firearms project page? Or is that what you mean by "In general, WikiProject Firearms goals are to work on improving the quality of project-tagged articles without imposing WikiProject Firearms guidelines as mandates"? Either way, thanks for your assistance! Some guy (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)