National Gun Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Welcome.

Attempting to research topics is more than most wikipedia editors do, so I commend you on that. Just bear in mind, we can point you in the right direction, but I wouldn't cite a forum as a credible source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KnightMove

· Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
Okay, now I understand why wiki is always "so accurate." :rolleyes:

:sneaky: i keed i keed.

However, something strikes me as odd, namely, and with all due respect, I honestly do not follow the logic of how on one hand you admit that you're a, quoting you, "...total gun noob..." unquote, and yet you also advise that you're intending to edit wiki on its gun topics.

Please do not take offense, but do you honestly think you'll be qualified to edit, or even become remotely qualified to edit gun topics on wiki due to simply receiving "hints" from people on a gun forum with your, again quoting you, "...tough research questions."?

Please elaborate if you will. Specifically, are you intending to edit strictly about the topic of guns, or maybe events involving guns, or lastly, more so the political leanings of those with an opinion about guns in general?

Forgive me, but frankly speaking I would neither do wiki edits concerning the Chinese's 5th Dynasty, nor would edit wiki about the flight characteristics of a 767 as I am without any knowledge on these topics. Why did you choose the topic of guns?


Very interested,
PW
 
  • Like
Reactions: fixitfred

· Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Okay, now I understand why wiki is always "so accurate." :rolleyes:

:sneaky: i keed i keed.

However, something strikes me as odd, namely, and with all due respect, I honestly do not follow the logic of how on one hand you admit that you're a, quoting you, "...total gun noob..." unquote, and yet you also advise that you're intending to edit wiki on its gun topics.

Please do not take offense, but do you honestly think you'll be qualified to edit, or even become remotely qualified to edit gun topics on wiki due to simply receiving "hints" from people on a gun forum with your, again quoting you, "...tough research questions."?

Please elaborate if you will. Specifically, are you intending to edit strictly about the topic of guns, or maybe events involving guns, or lastly, more so the political leanings of those with an opinion about guns in general?

Forgive me, but frankly speaking I would neither do wiki edits concerning the Chinese's 5th Dynasty, nor would edit wiki about the flight characteristics of a 767 as I am without any knowledge on these topics. Why did you choose the topic of guns?


Very interested,
PW
Those are fair questions. Let me answer them.

1. I somewhat bumped into the topic on the occasion of the Winchester Signal Cannon Model 1898. (This article is in German. Somewhen in the future I will care for an English translation. But for the moment, if you're interested, I can only ask you to use Google translate, which will return imperfect, but mostly viable results.)
The article was originally created by another user (who also has provided the photos, having a specimen at his purpose), but this article was too short and lacked basic information. Therefore it was threatened to be deleted.

I have taken it into my hands to expand it, and most of the content you see now has been written by me.

Why did I do this? Well, to quote a popular movie character:


Of course it is not crucial for mankind to have a Wikipedia article about this signal cannon. But it would have been a pity to have it deleted. It is a slightly better, more complete world with this Wikipedia article than without this Wikipedia article.

2. On the way of my research related to the cannon, I was able to see that licensee producer Bellmore-Johnson has a fascinating history and definitely deserves an article in its own right... and the argument in 1. applies!

3. You are right that it is dangerous when laymen on a topic write in Wikipedia about it. Still, it is not crucial to be aan expert in all instances. When you have reliable, competent sources telling the facts and sufficient intelligence to interpret them correctly, you can do your job writing a good article.

Example: According to a reliable source, Bellmore-Johnson has constructed a double-action revolver at a specific time. I can name this fact in a valid way without deep understanding of double-action revolvers. I am not writing a technical expertise.

4. During my research I've also noticed that German WIkipedia lacks many articles about interesting guns & manufacturers which already have articles in the English Wikipedia: The Whitney Wolverine, Wildey, Ithaca... I don't know if I will ever write them, but with some likelyhood, the John McClane quote will apply! Of course, as time goes by, someone else may write them. Or not.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,707 Posts
A far more plausible explanation than most noobs give when they say they want to learn about guns. We will see...
Knowledge is the only thing man can possess that he can not be forced to relinquish to another.

Welcome from Central Texas.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 

· Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
I'm not much on cannons, but you sound like you have an interesting task in front of you.

Will check it out as it comes along.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
9,954 Posts
Old Pete has a 2” cannon. He cast up a few balls and has the powder and fuse. He wants to shoot it at the old sand pit. I said I wanted to be there but after the first shot I won’t be hanging around.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top