File talk:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

XM16E1

[edit]

User:Tm prove those are XM16E1 rifles. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

prove the contraty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0xcxwZg2M Tm (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you have it round the wrong way, you're the one categorising, so you need to justify a categorisation if challenged. You can't tell from that photo that those are XM16E1s. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When was the m16A1 standardized? Tm (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that you are making an assumption based on when a rifle was standardized to categorise it because you can't tell from looking at the picture what rifle of the M16 family that is? Simple solution, don't add the category, there is already an adequate category of M16 rifle in United States Army service. Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tm you have failed to prove that there any XM16E1s, ignored this discussion and now are just edit-warring the category, you can revert yourself or I take this to the Admins. Mztourist (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly do not know what is an XM16E1 or an M16A1, as seen in several file talks. Where do you see the birdcage flash hider or the fenced magazine release? Also you seem that have missed that this photo also depicts one colt carbine or commando. Tm (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tm Where in this photo do you clearly see that the rifles do not have birdcage flash hiders or the fenced magazine releases? Face it you can't tell by looking at this picture whether they are XM16E1s or M16A1s, the same as in the other photos where I have raised this issue. What does a Colt carbine or commando have to do with anything? That is a different weapon to the XM16E1. Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Tm edit-warring categories Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that i "can't tell by looking at this picture whether they are XM16E1s or M16A1s, the same as in the other photos where I have raised this issue." Really?????
1 - You are talking of the 5 771 × 8 577 pixels image where only you do not see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist, xm16e1 boss, uncaged magazine release, three prong flash hider? But of course it is not an xm16e1.
2 - Or are you talking of the the image where only you cannot see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist and uncaged magazine release with the xm16e1 boss. Or are talking of the visible three prong flash hiders visible under the transparent condoms? except for you.
3 - Or are you talking of the Image labelled by the US Federal Government as an M16A1 and so demanded to know "explain why you (me) have categorised it as an XM16E1 rifle" and when i explained you admited that was in fact an XM16E1 (and implicitly showing that you do not know what is are the differences between an XM16E1 or an M16A1"..
4 - Or are you talking of one image of australian soldiers taken in January 2 1967 or another photo of australian soldiers taken in March 18 1966 were you demanded to know why to know why are those rifles XM16A1 when you can clearly see, in those two images, the teardrop forward assist and\or xm16e1 boss and\or uncaged magazine release and\or the three prong flash hider. This two cases are even worst as i asked you if knew when was the M16A1 standardized, was in M16A1 was only standardized in February 23 1967. Tm (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. User:Tm, you have still failed to answer my 4 April question: "Where in this photo do you clearly see that the rifles do not have birdcage flash hiders or the fenced magazine releases?" Unless you can point specifically to features in this image that show that these are XM16E1s rather than M16A1s you must remove the XM16E1 category. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment At the end of the day it's impossible to tell if most of the images in the category are of XM16E1s or not, and Tm isn't the only adding images that supposedly depict the model despite the fact that it's impossible what guns are in the images. So my suggestion for moving this forward is to just nominate the category for discussion and have all the images in it up merged to Category:M16A1_rifle since as Tm has said (and I assume you both agree with) there is no clear way to tell the difference between an XM16E1 and an M16A1. Otherwise, it just looks like your singling out a specific user and targeting their edits for no reason since other people are doing the exact thing Tm is, but apparently neither one of care. This isn't an issue with a single persons edit though. It's inherent to the fact that for all intents and purposes the XM16E1 and M16A1 aren't distinguishable, but people (probably including Tm) are going to continue putting images of guns that might not be XM16E1s in Category:XM16E1 rifle unless the wider problem isn't dealt with. Either that, or conversely you could both drop the stick. This clearly isn't going anywhere anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Adamant1 You are completely wrong to say "there is no clear way to tell the difference between an XM16E1 and an M16A1" and "that for all intents and purposes the XM16E1 and M16A1 aren't distinguishable." Even User:Tm would agree with me on that. There are ways to tell the difference, however none of them are visible in this image. Despite the lengthy discussion on Administrators' noticeboard you still don't seem to understand that basic point. As you have admitted that guns aren't your area of expertise and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, you should "drop the stick" and exit these discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get the point. But (and it's a huge but) none of the differences are visible in most or all of the images in Category:XM16E1 rifle. Otherwise, be my guest and tell me how you can tell the guns in File:Dan Hadani collection (990044326700205171).jpg (or hell any other image in the category) are XM16E1s. Ten bucks says you can't. You clearly don't care that you can't either because this is more to do with an axe grinding campaign towards a specific user then it does just not having images of guns that don't look like XM16E1s in the category. Otherwise you would have just done a CfD and removed the rest of the images from the category instead of singling out this one image and user. Regardless, be my guest and point out how you can tell the gun in that image is a Category:XM16E1 rifle. I'm going to participate in whatever discussions I want to in the meantime. Thanks though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about this image, not others, why are you incapable of sticking to the point? I agree that there are other images in the XM16E1 category, where its difficult if not impossible to tell if that category is appropriate, but as you say "I'm going to participate in whatever discussions I want to", so I'm not going to bother with your $10 challenge. I didn't do a CfD because XM16E1 is a valid category separate from M16A1, but users like Tm are too loose with using it. Mztourist (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that isn't going to get resolved by singling out a single user or edit. The issue in general needs to to be discussed in a CfD, because it has nothing to do with this particular image. Otherwise be my guest and say how you can tell other images in the category are XM16E1s. You clearly can't, which is why your deflecting by calling it a $10 challenge instead of just answering the question. Seriously, I don't know why you wouldn't just take the "challenge" since it's a pretty easy win if your right. You clearly have no argument outside of insults and obfuscations though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong as usual. If the distinguishing features of an XM16E1 are not clearly visible in the image then the category should be removed as is the case here. Strange that on AN you repeatedly said that Tm had explained the differences between an XM16E1 and an M16A1, but then you claim here that they're indistinguishable - ask Tm to take your $10 challenge. Mztourist (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't tell me how you know the guns in the images are XM16E1s then? Good to know. And supposedly your the one that has all the knowledge about the topic. Go figure. Anyway, just because Tm explained the difference doesn't mean the differences are necessarily discernible in the images. They aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never claimed to know what model of M16s are in this image, nor have I claimed to have "all the knowledge about the topic." You have acknowledged that the differences between an XM16E1 and an M16A1 may not be discernible in images. It then follows that if the differences aren't discernible in an image, that image shouldn't have the XM16E1 category. That is the case with this image. QED. Mztourist (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that cut and dry though. There's still prior consensus that should be followed regardless of what your personal opinion is. In that vain, the category was added by Dvaderv2 a few years ago and no one had an issue with it until you removed it a year later. Tm then added the category back. So whatever the actual facts are, your opinion was clearly in the minority at that point. More so since there is already other images of guns where the differences aren't discernible in the category. You can't just remove the category from a single image when the category is full of the same types of images and it's clearly the consensus that it's fine for them to be there. Otherwise either someone will just add the category back or this kind issue will be the result. Usually in that case you need to do a CfD and have the whole category changed. If the consensus is that these types of images are fine to include in the category (and it clearly is) then you can't just remove it from a single image based on your personal opinion though. That's not how this works. Also, the whole thing just reeks of POV editing if you do it that. Why would you know better then Dvaderv2, Tm, and the other editors who put the images in the category and what makes your opinion about it more authoritative or worth following then theirs? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By your own admission: [1] "how you can tell if an image is of an XM16E1 or not". Tm has failed to prove those are XM16E1s and Dvaderv2 hasn't joined this discussion. The Consensus of me, Andy Dingley and you (apparently) is that if you can't clearly see the discerning features in this image then the XM16E1 category shouldn't be used on this image. If you want to do a CfD be my guest. Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my opinion. I never said "no one" can tell what model of guns they are or that the image shouldn't be in the category. I've been pretty clear that who have specialized knowlege in the area probably can tell and that the image should only be removed if there's a CfD about it and its determined that such images shouldn't be in the category. For like the fifth time though, its not something that can be resolved through a single image or user. So don't misrepresent my position. In the meantime your the one who thinks the status quo should be changed. So its on you do a CfD if that's what you want. I'm not doing a CfD for something that's your problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What am I misrepresenting? You admitted yourself that "how you can tell if an image is of an XM16E1 or not." I don't need to do a CfD, I just need to establish consensus on this image, which I have done, but you refuse to admit you're wrong and want to try to spin this into another argument and forum. To use your words [2]: "You clearly wanted this to go a certain way and it didn't go that way...It's just how these things go sometimes." Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a statement. It was a question asking how you can tell if an image is of an XM16E1 or not since you said there are differences between the models. Asking someone a question about something they said isn't an admission of anything. Nor does it make me wrong about anything. As to you establishing consensus about this image, I don't see any. Both Tm and I think it should be in the category. The person who originally put it in the category clearly does also. So there's no consensus to remove the image from the category. As I've said, I'd be fine with it being removed from the category, but only as part of a discussion about images being in the category in general. Why not just a CfD? I really don't understand why you wouldn't want to do one if you really think there's no way to tell what model of guns are in the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can you agree with Tm that XM16E1 is an appropriate category for this image, when you said above: "there is no clear way to tell the difference between an XM16E1 and an M16A1" and "that for all intents and purposes the XM16E1 and M16A1 aren't distinguishable." If you don't know the differences how can you endorse the category? I won't take this to CfD because unlike you, I don't have an issue with the category, just its individual application to images when the distinguishing XM16E1 attributes aren't visible in the image. Mztourist (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IPhone X and IPhone XR. Both phones are "X" models with only minor variations that aren't super easy to tell just from looking at images. Yet people still put images of the phones in both categories even it's probably impossible to tell what model of phone is in the images just from looking at them. I guarantee that if you pick any other random X and Y categories for a model of a product with multiple variations it will be the exact same way. Does anyone care? Apparently not. Regardless, this is an iterative process and categories are meant to be a best guess. No one expects how images are categorized to be 100% accurate in every single situation. In the case of the iPhones if someone knows the image is either of an IPhone X or IPhone XR then it's fine IMO to put the image in one of those categories. It's better then not categorizing the images and it's not "wrong" either. The image is of either a IPhone XR or IPhone X.
Maybe you could argue the images should be in a category one level up from that like I don't know Category:iPhone, but then we know iPhone XRs and iPhone Xs aren't say iPhone 3Gs. So it's still more accurate then dumping every single image of an X model iPhone in the same category as every other iPhone. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if the image is of an X or XR. The important thing is that's not an image of an iPhone 3G. And again, no one cares if images of products are categorized that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are insisting that the XM16E1 category is appropriate here, so you have to justify why that category is warranted, which you clearly cannot do because you have said you don't believe there is any difference between an XM16E1 and an M16A1. You don't get to have it both ways, despite your iPhone argument.Mztourist (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dvaderv2: why did you add the category XM16E1 to this image? Please explain what XM16E1 attributes you can see in this image that justify that category as I don't believe that the image is clear enough to see any of them. Mztourist (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops and sorry. It really is too indistinct to ID as anything other than an A1-type rifle. Dvaderv2 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dvaderv2, I agree. Mztourist (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which rifles are we talking about?
I can just about agree that the rightmost figure is carrying a carbine with a collapsible stock (mostly because of the outline of the catch beneath, rather than the buttplate) – but it's far from an illustrative photo of the type and I still can't see any value to categorising it as such.
But for the XM16E1? There's nothing I can see in this image that allows me to identify one. They guy holding his weapon just ahead of the mag well, with the barrel near his right knee? I can barely see that this is an M16 (any model) – nothing more than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome of this ends up being the categories for the specific models should reaply be upmerged. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be an especially stupid thing to do. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better then people edit waring over it because there's no way to tell what model the guns are.
I'm aware of what Dvaderv2 has said about it.Thanks for telling me something I already knew though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Making sure that you know the consensus, given that yesterday you were saying Dvaderv2, "The person who originally put it in the category" believed it belonged in the XM16E1 category. Mztourist (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly did believe it bolnged in the category when they originally put it there. Does that mean their opionion can't change later? No of course not and I never claimed otherwise. So what's your point? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at 07:27, my point was to make clear to you that there was a new consensus, that the rifle type was indistinguishable and so the XM16E1 category could not be retained. Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said at 07:05 I was already of what Dvaderv2 said. So I don't know why you need to "make it clear to me" or even mention it in the first place. You clearly have an issue with listening to what people tell you and getting the point though. So for the third time, I already knew what Dvaderv2 said. So get the point and drop the stick already. And to think this is how your treating me even though I mostly agree with your side of the disagreement. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as soon as you acknowledge the consensus rather than just what Dvaderv2 said. Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's no wonder with an attitude like that the ANU complaint didn't go anywhere except for you getting told off by Yann for edit waring. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its more surprising that the ANU didn't become about you despite your best efforts. Mztourist (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet your the one who repeatedly refused to drop things when I asked you to multiple times. Whatever you want to tell yourself to feel better about getting told off for edit waring though lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, that warning was made around the time I made the complaint, not later. I'm confused what you think you're getting out of all this with your 3 days of ultimately pointless obfuscation on the ANU and then your pointless comments here when the consensus was clear. It seems that you're trying to get a victory somewhere or do you just crave attention? Mztourist (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you just crave attention? Your the one who refused to drop this when I asked you to. But sure, I crave attention because you refused to just end the discussion when I asked you to lol. Be my guest and drop the stick though. 10 bucks says you won't. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you're clearly someone who thinks getting the last word in means you've won, your new $10 challenge is to try to create a new thread here or on the ANU. Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User problems

[edit]

User:Jmabel Why was Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 105#Trying to get to something some admin can deal with archived without any Admin action being taken? Mztourist (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mztourist: Not sure why you are asking me, and not sure why you are asking here. I just tried to set up a forum there where people could perhaps state their case with less noise, in hopes that someone would then act on it. I certainly am not responsible for it having been quickly archived without action. You can always reactivate it by placing it back on COM:AN/U where it came from & indicate that it was archived without action. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted thanks. I mentioned you because I thought that you as an Admin would take that action. If no action is taken they will just carry on as they have been doing. Mztourist (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:UH-1Ds_landing_during_Operation_Bolling,_September_1967.jpg&oldid=762651180"