KunyLi69
March 2019
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Brown Bess has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Brown Bess was changed by KunyLi69 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853863 on 2019-03-10T16:34:32+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Charleville musket have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Brown Bess
editIf you're going to claim a range of 300–400 yards for a Brown Bess, you'll need a seriously robust source for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop adding the same implausible change, such as Model 1795 Musket. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I brought a serious source. Firepower. Weapons effects on the battlefield, 1630-1850
The old source doesn't work at all.
- Then you need to try reading it. Pages 10–11 give a credible range for the Brown Bess of 100 yards. Not the ludicrous 300–400 yards you keep adding. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- And in the meantime, stop adding this incorrect content. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then you need to try reading it. Pages 10–11 give a credible range for the Brown Bess of 100 yards. Not the ludicrous 300–400 yards you keep adding. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you should read the whole book, not base your opinion on the first 10 pages. On page 27 was the results of shooting on distance 300+ yards the percentage of hits made up 15-23%. Do you want more constructive facts? Good. In the book Napoleonic Infantry: Napoleonic Weapons and Warfare, on page 26 are a few more results of shooting at a distance of 300+ yards, the percentage of hits was 20-30%. In addition, you ignored another source that I brought British Light Infantry & Rifle Tactics of the Napoleonic Wars. Which shows the range for light infantry at 300-400 yards.
I hope these arguments are enough for you?
And more. In an old article, a terrible misconception was expressed that muskets were used only by line infantry against close lines. This misconception. Muskets were used by all kinds of troops with different tactics, including light infantry, militia, skirmishers.
- Try reading the book. Maybe even read some other books too. Even better, pick up thy musket and shoot with it.
- There is a big difference between 'range', as in the effective range of a musket, or the (shorter) tactical range at which they were used (our 80-100 yard figures here). Hughes though wanted to write a book, way back in the early '70s. So he picked a controversy. His particular choice was to claim enormous range for muskets. Now, take such a musket, with a bore in perfect condition (so it's hard to emulate today, harder than it was 50 years ago when Hughes dd it) and hand-select a load for it with pongee silk wads and the rest of it. And yes, if you're lucky, you might get 300 yards out of it. If you use it for indirect fire, with a howitzer's elevation. But you won't hit anything with it.
- This is an old book. Not a well-known one, but it is in muzzleloading circles. And it's regarded somewhere between a bit of a joke and someone's personal axe to grind. But it's not regarded as a serious argument as to the real useful range of muskets. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you forgot to give a serious and reliable source confirming that the muskets were used exclusively at a distance of 80-100 yards. Without proof, your words are worthless. My arguments prove that the muskets were effective enough at a distance of 300-400 yards against a target the size of an infantry line. There's no doubt about it. It is obvious that in combat conditions the accuracy of the shooting was greatly reduced due to smoke and stress. But even 1-2% of hits were a serious achievement. For example, in a modern war, the probability of hitting does not exceed 0.000001%. If you continue to interfere with the editing of articles, I will have to file a complaint with the administration.KunyLi69 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are of course free to file whatever you like, with whoever you like. You might want to read WP:BURDEN first though. Only not on Wikipedia at present, as you're already blocked for disruptive editing and persistently adding the same content, lacking clear sourcing and against obvious opposition whilst refusing to engage in any discussion of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I have provided reliable evidence that you are unable to refute. And probably out of personal dislike prevent the editing of articles in order to educate people. I edited the article Springfield Model 1842 (unfortunately I lost my old account data..). And nobody interfered with me. Here is the source of this article: The Rifle-Musket vs. The Smoothbore Musket, a Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Two Types of Weapons Primarily at Short Ranges[1] I was also studying tactical manuals written in the 18th and 19th centuries, which confirm the effectiveness of shooting at 300+ yards. Unfortunately, the sources were published only in Russian.[2]KunyLi69 (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Model 1822 Musket, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Potzdam Musket. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Potzdam Musket, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Springfield Model 1812 Musket. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 5 albert square (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
KunyLi69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
unsourced or poorly sourced content KunyLi69 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
KunyLi69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #24270 was submitted on Mar 11, 2019 13:20:44. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
KunyLi69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was given objective and reliable sources - this is a strong argument for the revision of outdated (and unconfirmed) data in earlier versions of articles: Brown Bess Model 1795 Musket The Model 1816 Musket Model 1822 Musket Model Musket 1777 Potsdam Musket 1723 1812 Springfield Model Musket M1752 Musket
As evidence, I cited several sources: Firepower. The effects of weapons on the battlefield, 1630-1850. On page 27 Napoleonic infantry: Napoleonic weapons and warfare. On page 26 British light infantry and infantry tactics of the Napoleonic wars. On page 30 The rifle-musket vs. the smoothbore musket, a comparison of the effectiveness of two types of weapons primarily at short ranges
The term "effective range" implies a certain probability of hitting the target and causing fatal damage. Based on numerous reliable sources, it is safe to say that the effective range of old firearms was between 300 and 400 yards. KunyLi69 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Block has expired. SQLQuery me! 07:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Administrators do not adjudicate on content disagreements, and continuing your content argument is not what is required here. What you need to do here is address your behaviour, as you did not approach the content disagreement in an acceptable way. Part of a successful unblock request would be an explanation of what was wrong with your approach to disagreement and how you would address future disagreements in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'll give you WP:Consensus as a hint. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)- If, when you are unblocked, you continue to edit war to force through your desired changes rather than seeking consensus for them, your next block will be longer (and possibly indefinite). I gave you a link to WP:Consensus just above - please read it before you type another word here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
KunyLi69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
On what basis was I blocked? I made a good point, but the administrator ignores me. How can we reach consensus if there are no arguments and denials of my position on the part of the administration? KunyLi69 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked because we don't believe you can avoid repeatedly reverting other editors, particularly Andy Dingley. I'm personally not prepared to unblock you unless you agree to an indefinite interaction ban between you and Andy. You obviously don't get on, but I trust Andy to edit responsibly, while I can't say the same about you, unfortunately. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- As I explained previously, administrators do not have any say in content disputes - and I have no idea whether or not you are correct in the content you wish to add/change. But what I can see is that your changes have been contested and reverted, and that you are edit warring to reimpose your changes. Once your changes are contested and reverted, you must then seek a consensus via discussion (usually on the relevant article's talk page) before making them again, and *not* edit war to reimpose them. I see no attempt by you to seek such consensus, and all I see is an immediate continuation of your edit warring after your previous block expired. Read the policies to which you have been directed and abide by them, or you will not edit here - it is as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
KunyLi69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My changes were challenged by only one person: Andy Dingley, after which I was blocked. All my further attempts at dialogue and consensus with Andy Dingley were ignored. In that case, I see no reason to block. "Silence is a sign of consent!" KunyLi69 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Duplicate unblock request Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you still feel Model 1795 Musket (for example) is factually incorrect, the next thing to do after the block expires is to go to Talk:Model 1795 Musket, state your arguments, and not edit the article anymore until the discussion concludes one way or another. Andy is not unreasonable, and if you can bring convincing sources of information that are widely credited as being factually correct and credible to peers, he'll probably work with you. If you feel hard done by that Wikipedia is, from your point of view, "wrong", consider that Boing! said Zebedee has already basically said that if you edit the article again and revert changes, you're likely to be blocked for longer, perhaps indefinitely. If that happens, Wikipedia will be "wrong" forever from your viewpoint. You need to pick your battles on this carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)KunyLi69, you say your changes were challenged by only one person? But they were supported by only one person too! You made changes, User:Andy Dingley contested and reverted them. The onus is then on *you* to start a talk page discussion and seek a consensus for your changes. You did not do that, and you are showing no willingness to do so. And you will not find your "Silence is a sign of consent!" claim anywhere in WP:Consensus.
Let me offer some more general advice. You are new here, having only registered your account a few days ago. Now, when you find yourself in a dispute, what do you think is the better approach to resolving it - listen to what very experienced Wikipedia editors are telling you about how we resolve disputes here, or just blunder on in your own inexperienced way insisting you are right? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee, Ritchie333, Thanks for the clarification, I'll try to do it right next time. Although I didn't think it was so difficult.. The fact is that a few months ago, I created another account (TooLRF) and edited several articles, including the Springfield Model 1842. Then I had no problems with other users and the administration (except that there was a slight violation due to "quoting the source"). My changes have not been challenged or reversed.KunyLi69 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- This needs to be discussed on article talk: pages before changing those articles. Or, as it's a broader issue than just one article, then the project talk: page. Such as WT:WikiProject Firearms#Range of 18th century muskets?. Where this was raised a couple of days ago, and another editor there rejected your changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @KunyLi69: WT:WikiProject Firearms#Range of 18th century muskets? looks like the ideal place to discuss this and seek consensus, so if you'll commit to discussing it there and not making any contested changes without first getting a consensus in support, I'd be prepared to lift the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee, I think that's a good idea. KunyLi69 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I've unblocked on that agreement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Muskets
editI appreciate your interest in muskets, and would value your personal experience firing muskets in comparison to other firearms at ranges in the hundreds of meters. I fired the Springfield Model 1842 carried by my 3G-uncle in the American civil war. The most obvious disadvantage of the civil war musket was the fixed sights. Although I greatly prefer adjustable sights, I was fairly confident in my ability to adjust point of aim on other fixed sight firearms; but the fixed sights on the Springfield musket obscured too much of the target vicinity to aim consistently at man-sized targets (upright hay bales) against a uniform background at ranges over 200 meters. I observed large round ball projectiles at the remaining velocity were very likely to ricochet off the ground surface, however, so I concluded hit probability might be better keeping the target in view, anticipating hitting in front of the target and hoping for a ricochet. Another problem was ammunition consistency (or rather barrel inconsistency) as fouling increased. Using the same diameter patched ball which provided optimum accuracy in a clean barrel, required ramrod pressure (actually impacts) deforming the ball to seat it in a fouled barrel. Paper research suggests smaller-diameter projectiles were used for faster loading, and I found a significant decrease in accuracy from the less uniform positioning and patching of sub-diameter projectiles. I suspect, without documentation, the sub-diameter projectiles issued would have had rather large manufacturing tolerances, introducing another source of inconsistency. I concluded, left to his own devices, my uncle might have fired at targets beyond 100 meters with low hit probability, but once the enemy was within 100 meters his best option would have been to reload seeking available cover anticipating holding fire until the range was under 20 meters at which point he would have been able to kill one soldier before relying upon his bayonet. What is your experience? Thewellman (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in my country there are serious difficulties in obtaining a firearms license. Therefore, my real experience of musket shooting is very meager. I fired my friend's musket at a distance of no more than 30 meters. So I'm more of a theorist than a practitioner. But the study of historical documents and comparing them with modern data obtained by reenactors, gives a much deeper understanding of the military tactics and capabilities of weapons of the 18-19 centuries. KunyLi69 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)