| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
User talk:PainMan356: Difference between revisions
(New page: == Lee Enfield == You need to do a better job of showing your sources before you go and make changes like you did on the Lee Enfield page. Those photos were taken by a MPM2008. He has acce...) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Lee Enfield == | == Lee Enfield == | ||
You need to do a better job of showing your sources before you go and make changes like you did on the Lee Enfield page. Those photos were taken by a MPM2008. He has access to the actual weapons. I've rolled back the changes. And I will continue to do so until I see your sources documented. Use the discussion page for that work please. Thank you. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC) | You need to do a better job of showing your sources before you go and make changes like you did on the Lee Enfield page. Those photos were taken by a MPM2008. He has access to the actual weapons. I've rolled back the changes. And I will continue to do so until I see your sources documented. Use the discussion page for that work please. Thank you. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Hello, I am the photographer of that particular rifle and boy do I WISH it were an ultra rare SMLE No 1 MK II but it isn't. I looked up a photo of the ultra rare No 1. Mk II (Pre WW1 rifle) and the receiver is different. Mine is a plain jane (and thus not super valuable) No 1, Mk III. Don't know what made you think it was a No II but the area for the stripper clip and the rear sight are completely different on the two rifles. I also went to the rack where that rifle is and double checked (actually hoping that I had the vastly more valuable No 1 Mk II, but that isn't the case.)[[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 20:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Lets play nice == | |||
''First: I don't know of anyone appointing you LordGod of this site. I don't take kindly to people giving me orders. So knock it off. I changed the caption on the Lee-Enfield page because it was wrong--which is confirmed by the photographer (MoviePropMaster2008 9 -- see article Talk page). If you object to an edit I've made you can certainly do so politely and without the ridiculous attitude.I CAN prove that I'm right. The information comes from an illustrated book about small arms. As the photo is copyrighted I can hardly simply post it. Therefore, I'll place a source note. Combined with MovePropMaster2008's post should settle the issue once and for all.'' | |||
PainMan356 why don't you relax. I'm one of the moderators on this site and I can and will make corrections if I think they are necessary. Which means I do have the authority to give orders (your word) and make changes. If I'm wrong then I will apologize and we will move on. But I don't appreciate people leaving agressive posts on my discussion page. So cease and desist please and lets try to be friends. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 12:35, 2 April 2011 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:49, 2 April 2011
Lee Enfield
You need to do a better job of showing your sources before you go and make changes like you did on the Lee Enfield page. Those photos were taken by a MPM2008. He has access to the actual weapons. I've rolled back the changes. And I will continue to do so until I see your sources documented. Use the discussion page for that work please. Thank you. --Jcordell 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, I am the photographer of that particular rifle and boy do I WISH it were an ultra rare SMLE No 1 MK II but it isn't. I looked up a photo of the ultra rare No 1. Mk II (Pre WW1 rifle) and the receiver is different. Mine is a plain jane (and thus not super valuable) No 1, Mk III. Don't know what made you think it was a No II but the area for the stripper clip and the rear sight are completely different on the two rifles. I also went to the rack where that rifle is and double checked (actually hoping that I had the vastly more valuable No 1 Mk II, but that isn't the case.)MoviePropMaster2008 20:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Lets play nice
First: I don't know of anyone appointing you LordGod of this site. I don't take kindly to people giving me orders. So knock it off. I changed the caption on the Lee-Enfield page because it was wrong--which is confirmed by the photographer (MoviePropMaster2008 9 -- see article Talk page). If you object to an edit I've made you can certainly do so politely and without the ridiculous attitude.I CAN prove that I'm right. The information comes from an illustrated book about small arms. As the photo is copyrighted I can hardly simply post it. Therefore, I'll place a source note. Combined with MovePropMaster2008's post should settle the issue once and for all.
PainMan356 why don't you relax. I'm one of the moderators on this site and I can and will make corrections if I think they are necessary. Which means I do have the authority to give orders (your word) and make changes. If I'm wrong then I will apologize and we will move on. But I don't appreciate people leaving agressive posts on my discussion page. So cease and desist please and lets try to be friends. --Jcordell 12:35, 2 April 2011 (CDT)