Talk:Steyr SSG 69
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
The SSG 69 in Russia: http://twower.livejournal.com/tag/7-%D1%8F%20%D0%B4%D1%88%D0%B4 In use by the 7th parachute-assault division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkvaskov (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
SSG 69 PI is the civilian version edit
To all those peoples who don´t appreciate the deleting of the above sentence in the article (who of them is familiar with this rifle and the circumstances in Austria?):
As former military sniper we used the model SSG 69 PI, that was then back in the eighties. There is no civilian version of this rifle. Everyone in Austria can buy this rifle in any version (PI, PII, PIV). It will be only registered at the public authorities. What any civilist, shooter, hunter may not buy is the version PIV with supressor because possession of supressors or using them is not legal in Austria. The only exception of this rule is the police and military special units. But use of weapons by them is very, very low here compared with countries like the US.
Note that reference #4 is already leading to our official army website and that one can clearly see the SSG69 PI in use! Hence the erasing of the claim " SSG 69 PI is the civilian version" is completely justified. Austrianbird (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Steyr SSG 69. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131110055039/http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/news/ipi/ipi0312.shtml to http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/news/ipi/ipi0312.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Steyr SSG 69. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012004559/http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/ to http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325193515/http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.notdenizi.com/img313.imageshack.us/img313/5441/x446134zi3.jpg.pagespeed.ic.wNuPMiyk_b.jpg to http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.notdenizi.com/img313.imageshack.us/img313/5441/x446134zi3.jpg.pagespeed.ic.wNuPMiyk_b.jpg
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716143806/http://www.steyrarms.com/fileadmin/user/pdf/SSG_69_PI_PII_PIIK_PIV.pdf to http://www.steyrarms.com/fileadmin/user/pdf/SSG_69_PI_PII_PIIK_PIV.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Steyr SSG 69. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810215335/http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/en/sporting-weapons/steyr-ssg-69/technical-data/ to http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/en/sporting-weapons/steyr-ssg-69/technical-data/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417231202/http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/en/sportwaffen/steyr-ssg-69/ to http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/en/sportwaffen/steyr-ssg-69/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Germany added edit
I added "German Police Units"; famously, at the time of the 1972 Munich terror attack, the Munich Police had newly acquired Steyr SSG-Rifles in stock, but those were not used, allegedly since they hadn't been trained on them yet.
2003:D1:B740:9F01:341F:87C6:B25:8667 (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Aging problem section edit
The sources cited for this section currently are WP:TTAG, which is considered unreliable, Paul Green, whose website is self-published, and is not an established subject matter expert or author as determined by the verifiability policy, and the Google Patent, which is a primary source, and thus cannot be used to make further judgments as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:OR. Loafiewa (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have added links to German and US Patent office. This source "must" be reliable and serious enough. And I also add links to auctions of the biggest auction house in europe, the Dorotheum, with two auctions of SSG 69 and the description of a weapons expert of this auction house who describe this cracking problem inkluding pictures of the cracks. That, next to hundreds of reports in internet forums, articles in "thefirearmsblog" etc (the whole gun world know this problem) must be enough to be accepted as a "reliable source". Innominabilis (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- You need to review WP:RS and WP:SYNTH to understand what constitutes a reliable source -- your assertion that it "must be enough to be accepted" is not how those policies work. Claims need to be *directly* supported by the sources referenced. We cannot derive information, combine information, or otherwise make indirect synthesis of statements that do not directly support a claim. So if you want to say the SSG 69 trigger cracks, you need a source that directly makes the statement "The SSG 69's trigger cracks." We cannot derive that from a picture. We cannot simply accept "the whole gun world knows this problem" (and you do not speak for the whole gun world.) There might be something we could use in there, it's hard to tell -- but the way you've currently written and sourced it is not appropriate for inclusion here. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem of the cracks is described by an expert from a world-renowned auction house - this auction house's website is not listed as an unreliable source. The problem is also described in an article by thetruthaboutguns but admittedly: this website is not considered reputable enough by Wikipedia. There are hundreds of reports in internet forums about the problem - the problem here too: even if they reflect reality, they probably don't see it as a reputable source. And then we would have a patented product to solve the problem. We are not talking about a new product to solve the problem, but rather a product that has been on the market for over 10 years to solve the problem with this very common vintage weapon from the 60s. I think there are a lot of statements in Wikipedia articles that are accepted by significantly fewer sources. However, I have provided an additional reputable source that addresses the crack problem. The source also includes images of cracks that almost everyone in the gun industry is familiar with on this gun model, like the fact that the sky is blue. Innominabilis (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- None of what you're saying is how our policies on reliable sources work. Again, I will strongly urge you to review the WP:RS and WP:SYNTH pages before continuing this discussion. A source is not automatically reliably simply because it is not listed on the list of perennially unreliable sources. That's not how it works. Nor do "hundreds of reports on Internet forums" qualify as reliable sources either. Again -- you need to provide sources that *directly* address the claim that is mentioned, which you have not done so. If you're seeking to make the statement that the SSG 69 trigger cracks with use, you need a reliable source that *directly* makes the claim that "The SSG 69 trigger cracks with use." Pointing to a patent, pointing to unreliable sources, or showing an image of a crack, do not count. Those are synthesis and that constitutes original research. You are required by policy as the editor who seeks to add or restores material to provide an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution; and you're required to achieve consensus before reinserting disputed material. If your sources are not reliable, or do not directly support the contribution, or there is not a consensus to do so, it cannot be included. I'll note also that since you appear to be a Single Purpose Account that exists solely for the purpose of advertising a particular engineer's contributions to firearms, your edits are going to receive extra scrutiny to ensure they comply with our policies and guidelines. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The sources I cited are reliable and I have also included a quote from one of them. Your persistent deletions are not compliant. You are making consensus impossible and I have no choice but to undo your unlawful changes. Innominabilis (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how it works.
Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise.
-- seeWP:ICANTHEARYOU. Again, you have not established the reliability of these sources, and you're inserting original research, which is disallowed by policy. Your unsupported assertions to the contrary hold no weight, as you have not even attempted to engage in consensus-building behavior here. Your auction house links are unacceptable -- they are links to a commercial site (already of questionable reliability, since the purpose is making sales) with no established editorial control, no clear record for fact checking, provide no sources other than an unsupported primary source claim from a person whose credentials as an "expert" are not established, and whose statement lacks the specificity to be considered in directly support of your claim. And it's unclear whether they're talking about this rifle, all rifles, only SIG rifles, some rifles, etc. even if they were, so the source would be insufficient even if all those other things were established. Your other links are to commercial sellers hawking their own parts, have none of the hallmarks or indicators of reliability we look for in a WP:RS, and once again do not explicitly make the claims that you are making. You cannot substitute your own original research when a source's statement is ambiguous. You've been doing this across multiple pages now -- taking a picture without any explanatory text, or a fragment of a primary source not directly applicable to what you're claiming and applying it as original research, despite there not being any reliable secondary sources associated with it to support your claim. That does NOT satisfy our policies and guidelines on verifiability, reliability of sources, usage of primary sources, original research, or synthesis. These are not optional. You do not get to substitute your own rules for Wikipedia's. If you continue again, you're going to be blocked from editing without further warning. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)- The threat showed me that there is no point in supporting Wikipedia. This makes serious content impossible. Innominabilis (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you're unwilling to abide by our policies, which aren't particularly difficult, you're welcome to leave. Nobody is forcing you to edit here. But you're not allowed to simply ignore our policies and procedures simply because you don't wish to follow them; and that does not "make serious content impossible." ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Innominabilis (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a forum for you to air your grievances about Wikipedia in general. Please stick to the discussion topic at hand. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Innominabilis (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you're unwilling to abide by our policies, which aren't particularly difficult, you're welcome to leave. Nobody is forcing you to edit here. But you're not allowed to simply ignore our policies and procedures simply because you don't wish to follow them; and that does not "make serious content impossible." ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The threat showed me that there is no point in supporting Wikipedia. This makes serious content impossible. Innominabilis (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how it works.
- The sources I cited are reliable and I have also included a quote from one of them. Your persistent deletions are not compliant. You are making consensus impossible and I have no choice but to undo your unlawful changes. Innominabilis (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- None of what you're saying is how our policies on reliable sources work. Again, I will strongly urge you to review the WP:RS and WP:SYNTH pages before continuing this discussion. A source is not automatically reliably simply because it is not listed on the list of perennially unreliable sources. That's not how it works. Nor do "hundreds of reports on Internet forums" qualify as reliable sources either. Again -- you need to provide sources that *directly* address the claim that is mentioned, which you have not done so. If you're seeking to make the statement that the SSG 69 trigger cracks with use, you need a reliable source that *directly* makes the claim that "The SSG 69 trigger cracks with use." Pointing to a patent, pointing to unreliable sources, or showing an image of a crack, do not count. Those are synthesis and that constitutes original research. You are required by policy as the editor who seeks to add or restores material to provide an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution; and you're required to achieve consensus before reinserting disputed material. If your sources are not reliable, or do not directly support the contribution, or there is not a consensus to do so, it cannot be included. I'll note also that since you appear to be a Single Purpose Account that exists solely for the purpose of advertising a particular engineer's contributions to firearms, your edits are going to receive extra scrutiny to ensure they comply with our policies and guidelines. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem of the cracks is described by an expert from a world-renowned auction house - this auction house's website is not listed as an unreliable source. The problem is also described in an article by thetruthaboutguns but admittedly: this website is not considered reputable enough by Wikipedia. There are hundreds of reports in internet forums about the problem - the problem here too: even if they reflect reality, they probably don't see it as a reputable source. And then we would have a patented product to solve the problem. We are not talking about a new product to solve the problem, but rather a product that has been on the market for over 10 years to solve the problem with this very common vintage weapon from the 60s. I think there are a lot of statements in Wikipedia articles that are accepted by significantly fewer sources. However, I have provided an additional reputable source that addresses the crack problem. The source also includes images of cracks that almost everyone in the gun industry is familiar with on this gun model, like the fact that the sky is blue. Innominabilis (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- You need to review WP:RS and WP:SYNTH to understand what constitutes a reliable source -- your assertion that it "must be enough to be accepted" is not how those policies work. Claims need to be *directly* supported by the sources referenced. We cannot derive information, combine information, or otherwise make indirect synthesis of statements that do not directly support a claim. So if you want to say the SSG 69 trigger cracks, you need a source that directly makes the statement "The SSG 69's trigger cracks." We cannot derive that from a picture. We cannot simply accept "the whole gun world knows this problem" (and you do not speak for the whole gun world.) There might be something we could use in there, it's hard to tell -- but the way you've currently written and sourced it is not appropriate for inclusion here. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)