User talk:Mike Searson/archive30

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Not a fan of the ygm template, so handwritten version: have sent you an email. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mike, I wanted to run something past you before I proposed it at the Firearms project page. I was editing the SIG P230 and removed some "official users". What I've noticed it the lists on some firearms starts becoming a list of any random PD that uses them and it got mentioned in the local paper. I removed the agencies that aren't notable enough for their own article. I'd like to see these lists get cleaned up a bit. What's your take on it? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Are YOU going to fix the many redundant and inaccurate pages? I'm not. Digitallymade (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

{subst:uw-vandalism1|Smith & Wesson M&P15}} Reb1981 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC) (unintentional vandalism/test)

That makes no fucking sense, whatsoever.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Called typing hasty and leaving out code. Sorry, we shall discuss it more, you can delete this section. Reb1981 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Haha...ok...it's all good.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mike, Is there any truth to this weapon? Having seen the paper version of their catalogs, they claim an official affiliation with USMC and have some interesting "official USMC" retro items that I suspect are modern, non-issue fantasy creations. If that weapon has true provenance, where could we find the story according to reliable sources?

After handling one of these, I'm contemplating getting one to keep with the machetes and use while gardening. :) It handles better than an issued machete.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No that's a complete fabrication by Bud-K. Be careful using that steel on anything more serious than chopping down a weed. Even on a sapling, I'll bet that blade will break.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and good to know that my suspicions were correct. I see in the reviews that is what happened to a couple of them. They use the official logo on this which they claim to be a WWII classic. It loosely resembles a real Kabar and that's about it. Here is what they would have you believe that Force Recon is carrying. Does the Corps not go after them for this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I know the Corps charges a royalty for using the EGA. I don't remember what it is of the top of my head, $0.05, $0.50 or $5.00 for each instance and that was for placing the logo on the blade of a knife, inset in a pistol grip, on a T-Shirt etc. At one time they used to approve of who could use it in addition to the royalty, but I'm not 100% on that anymore. That said, I don't know if they can or would go after them for using it in an ad in the manner that Bud-K is using it. Now the United one probably has to do with them obtaining a license for Mameluke and NCO swords back in the day. Maybe I'll forward this on to HQUSMC and see if anyone cares about the "brand" being tarnished anymore.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)