User talk:Predator20

RE: SIG cont.

It looks pretty nice! I've always loved the "reverse" two-tone SIGs (like the one in 2 Fast 2 Furious). That being said, if it says "Made in West Germany", that means it was made before 1989. Are you OK buying such an old gun that you can't inspect up-close? I'm kinda paranoid about buying guns that I can't inspect first, but if you're OK with it, then go for it. It's definitely a good-looking piece, and I think no gun collection without a SIG is ever complete (though I have an obvious bias).

Also, CCR does a great job on finishes (my 226 had its slide re-finished by them). If they did any work on the gun, it's probably in good shape, but personally, I would rather try it before I buy it. -MT2008 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The checkered style gives a better grip, but you can't use the newer trigger bar springs with them (only the old ones, which have a tendency to break after extended usage). My recommendation is that when you get the gun, ditch the "pebble" grips and put on a set of Hogues (provided your hand is big enough). That's what I've got on my 226 right now. -MT2008 00:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I like the two-tone one better. I think you made the right choice. And yeah, don't get the finger groove Hogues, those are too big. The regular Hogues are also pretty thick, but they do improve the grip. In my opinion, they're superior to the factory grips. -MT2008 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:

Blocked him. Thanks. -MT2008 23:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would need to see either the receivers or the sight to be sure. If they're real guns, they're most likely to be Norinco Type 56s. But if they're replicas, probably Hudson model gun AK-47s. Also, hope you enjoy the SIG; post pics when you get it! -MT2008 01:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looked at 'em closely. They have milled receivers, so my guess is that they're the Hudson AK-47 replicas. When there's multiple types of a certain weapon in a scene, you're usually looking at replicas of some sort. Like, if there's a cache of M16s, there's usually going to be some MGC replicas. Same with the AKs. -MT2008 02:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

They are NOT Hudsons. I have Hudsons. I will post a pic of a Hudson soon. Those are .22 LR clones (not the new ones, but the old ones from the 1980s). Not Armscorp but I think some other company, perhaps Armi-Jager. The handguards are indicative of the strange .22LR clones of the AK from decades ago. MoviePropMaster2008 01:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrected that problem. Also, hope you get the SIG soon. At least you live in a state that has sane handgun laws. NC's are just...well, retarded. Oh, and happy 4th! -MT2008 23:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Got 'em. In the future, though, can you also put the delete tag on them? I'm kinda busy this week (on the road a lot) and don't know how often I can be on the site. If you put the delete tag on, then at least another admin can get them if I'm not around.

Can't wait to see the SIG. Hope it serves you well. -MT2008 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just put [[Category:Delete]] on the picture (hit "Edit" and type it in). You can still point me to it, but this way, if I'm not around, someone else might see it. This is the page listing all the stuff with the Delete tag: http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Category:Delete -MT2008 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

Sure, feel free to edit the photos. bunni 02:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pinko

Well the guy is definitely British, or some kind of influence in his language. I know they are the only countries that calls us Americans "Yanky", but the way he writes is definite up there and only UK uses the worse arse Excalibur01 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up. I'll check my other uploads. --Ben41 00:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hunter

I've actually been considering making it a featured article; should I do it by season or the show as a whole? I'd go by season but I don't know if that'd be wise since not many people have heard of it. Then again, it may be a nice way to introduce people to the show and show off some of the various firearms used. What would you recommend? - Speakeasy804 15:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New anonymous member

I checked ALL of the other edits and everything else seems okay. it seems like he's learning the system and how to edit on IMFDB. That one you caught is a pretty big screwup, but so far none of the other edits are vandalism. I will try to keep an eye on him, but he must just be another noob who is unsure how to do the pages correctly. MoviePropMaster2008 02:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RE:

Thanks for that info. I'm suddenly not sure whether I should do anything, though. As far as I'm concerned, if the people who wanted me to take down the original image want to get angry at this other guy, that's his problem. -MT2008 23:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin

Hey, Brian, I have a question: Do you want an Administrator position? I think you're actually overdue for the promotion, and we need good people like you on the Admin team. If you want, I can email Bunni to ask him to give you the new status. -MT2008 01:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! I also asked Ben41 if he wanted it. -MT2008 01:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence

Thanks for putting in the good word. Guess we're going to have to learn something new. Should be fun. --Jcordell 02:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin rights

you has em. WikiSysop 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW - a belated Congratulations on your promotion to Mod

Now you will have to fight the trolls/idiots/fanboys even MORE! hahahahaha(evil laugh). Congratulations!!!! MPM

Delete section

I found a bunch of pages and screenshots not deleted by anyone here: [1]. Unfortunately, I rarely see admins go there. - Kenny99 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Stan's wacko watch

Hey man, remember me? Maybe not. Interesting how massive one's talk page gets when they become an Admin.. Congrats on that BTW. That said, I figure I'll let you know about this (if you don;t already), and I suppose you can pass it on to MT2008 and the others. Anyway, I think there's a problem with 76.121.27.16 - He's been warned several times before to stop uploading/posting redundant gun images on pages (I just remembered MT was one of the ones who's warned him), yet he's kept on doing it. He's done a handful just earlier today that I've reverted back. I hate tattling on another guy but I have have a feeling I'm not the only one he's annoyed with this crap. The guy does seem to add to the site and all, but I just don't like him continuing to do this stuff, it's kind of irritating. So, well, there ya go. Again, I just remembered MT told about this a few months back, but it seems he didn't care to listen, so, I don't know. StanTheMan 00:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. Thanks, man. StanTheMan 03:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a vandal 75.31.96.25 - He just made one comment, but it's a rather tasteless one and should probably be hit on the head with the banhammer anyway. Another good anonymous guy edited it out already, but, thought I'd let you know. StanTheMan 16:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

- Another one 71.91.170.82 - he's removed content from pages, which I've reversed. I warned him on his talk page but you should probably keep an eye on him. Or just ban him, your choice I guess. StanTheMan 18:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

- Got another dude who's apparently flipped his shit lately. However, the dude's made shitty comments elsewhere and I've also had to revert sections he's deleted before, too. - 173.62.63.157. StanTheMan 04:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Already terminated MoviePropMaster2008 04:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

- Ah. Well, I guess it's nevermind then, Pred. Maybe you'll get the pleasure of the next one, heh. StanTheMan 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

- I know you got this one already (74.63.112.138), but damn if this comment didn't give me a chuckle (can i request i be a mod? cause you know im awesome so yea. just tell me when thats done k? k...peace bro) Bah. StanTheMan 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

- Yeah, you have a real fun job, now! ;D StanTheMan 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevens 520/620 Shotgun

The Stevens 520/620 is a John Browning design. The 520 went on the market in 1904 and was discontinued in 1932. The 620 was a more streamlined version. The abrupt angle at the rear of the reciever on the Model 520 was eliminated with the 620.Other than that the 520/620 are mechanically identical. The 520/620 was manufactured in 12, 16 and 20 gauge. The 620 was discontinued in 1955. Both models were avilable in riot configuration and sport/field configuration. I saw you post on Nyles discussion page. Also I think a 520/620 page is a great idea. --Jcordell 02:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Stevens 520

As I understand it (and I'm a little fuzzy on the details myself as there's not all that much info available), the 520 was the original model with the stepped receiver, and the 520-30 was the later model with the flat receiver (pictured). Very cool shotguns, actually - they were designed by John Moses Browning and were actually the first side-ejecting hammerless guns on the market. They were made 1904-1932 and then another production run in the 40s for the US Army in trench gun configuration. - Nyles

Russian Spammer

Hahaha. Good job on the ban hammer! You seemed unsure whether or not that Spammer you blocked was really a spammer. I speak Russian and can read it only so so. But that entire blurb was a nonsensical paragraph about how to buy cars. It was definitely SPAM. Funny since our Russian user Kloga has argued that he has 'never seen any Cyrillic Spam on IMFDB' LOL! MoviePropMaster2008 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Front Page

I added Stargate SG-1 yesterday and was wondering: What articles qualify for the random featuring? Obviously games are out of the question. And they have to have a certain standard. But: Is a certain length (amount of firearms), or completion of details like cross linking (actor pages etc.) necessary, too? I did not find anything about this in the rules. --Milkovich 08:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I´d go with

Fleury takes aim at the terrorists Mercedes.

and

A Saudi police officer with his SIG SG 552.

Also: There seems to be something odd going on with the featured article frame. From time to time the place appears blank. --Milkovich 17:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Blank feature article

If I remember correctly, it´s on the FeaturedArticle and the Main page. The thing is that the frame is empty. So I can not tell whether it is a specific movie or just a single line of coding that is messing it up.

btw.: Can only admins redirect pages or change the title of one? Driven To Kill should - according to IMDB - be Driven to Kill. No capital T. --Milkovich 17:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Okay. thanks for the head up. --Jcordell 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

TOC format

What works for me is putting "Film Title" first, putting the poster info right underneath, and then the TOC br clear=all. --Ben41 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Combining Grindhouse

Since the two films were released overseas and on video as separate films, I think it would be best to keep them as separate pages and put a link to the Grindhouse page. --Ben41 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

They're already on the page. I done that as one of my first deeds here. :) --Kloga 21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And how many pictures of Hobo should be scrapped? :( --Kloga 21:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

About Hobo - OK, i'll delete something. :) --Kloga 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait! 6 pictures of ALL the trailer is the maximum, or you mean just the Hobo's Shotgun pictures? If the first variety - it's terrible. --Kloga 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Even 5, not six. :) By the way, I'll found that video of Werewolf Women of the SS is officail - it from Rob Zombie's channel. Can i restore the pictures from this trailer. I was trying to write about it to Ben41, but he's ignoring me. :( --Kloga 22:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Beretta 92FS

It was you who identified it in Grindhouse? Just wanted to know how did you do that (if it's you, of course). :) --Kloga 13:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. It's exciting to know such details. I do know, that many guns have their own features, but sometimes it's hard to tell what is that features and it's hard to know all, like that one with the exposed barrell in 92FS.

Also wanted to ask - is it a kind of ethics or something for this site to credit, who recognised the gun (if it's not the permanent writer of an article), like in the Miami Vixe series first season article? --Kloga 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Total Recall/Goncz

(From above section) Have you checked out the deal with the Total Recall page? I posted a bit extra myself in the Talk page, but, oh man, I really hope it ain't that serious.

I agree, I feel we have an obligation to note the Claridge info as a resource for background on the gun itself. But, I guess that may not remain so. Well, lets just say it got be a bit perturbed. I remember what one banned member (movieman1993 or something) said that 'we wouldn't get legal problems you fools!' or something to that effect. Bah, wish he was here just so we could prove him wrong. Oh well, I guess we'll see what MPM and Bunni do. StanTheMan 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's odd and we really don't know if the poster is really Goncz. But I' sure we'll get it worked out. --Jcordell 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Actor Page

Well, I had to take off almost right after I set up the page. But, I probably would have forgotten to search so I appreciate the help, and I'll keep that in mind next time. Thanks, man. StanTheMan 02:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lame page makers

How much you wanna bet that all these noob IMFDB members who make pages for kids movies, either Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network, are all around the age of a 7th grader? I recently deleted a project which wasn't even a movie, it was a video taken by a 7th grade class as part of a school project. I was stunned that the page maker took the project as being one of serious merit (and their spelling and grammar sucked) so I assumed the originator was a kid. MoviePropMaster2008 17:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Boxcar Bertha

I'm fairly certain it's a Remington Model 10. Look at the reciever and the end of the barrel. --Jcordell 12:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay it's done.Now I need to make a page for the Model 10. For some reason I thought there was already one.--Jcordell 16:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and now there is a Remington Model 10 page. Great.--Jcordell 12:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

CC Revolvers

Snagging can be overcome with practice, but why when there are so many great hammerless and concealed hammer models now days. If you plan on shooting your concealment piece frequently I would suggest one of the S&W J frames. Personally I like the 649 or 49 and there are still many lightly used S&W J frames out there that will cost you a anywhere from a couple hundred to several hundred dollars less than a new one. The 38/638 is a good gun, but the alloy frame isn't as sturdy as the all steel if you're looking at a lot of shooting. Also if you can find one of the Ruger SP101 with the 2.25" barrel with the DA hammer you have a good little revolver there. However alot of folks prefer the trigger action on the S&W revolver. I prefer Smith & Wesson, but I appreciate Ruger and aknowledge that the company makes a very solid and strong revolver.Just remember that the Ruger is heavier, but will also withstand alot of heavy usage. Look at your requirements.

Now be careful with Colts. Like I said in that other posting the old Colt revolver action (Pre-Mk III/IV/V/King Cobra/Anaconda) is tricky and there aren't that many gunsmiths left anymore who know how to work on the action. I would recommend a Colt for collecting, but a Smith or Ruger for real world. Be careful of Taurus. The company has come a long way, but I still have doubts about the quality control. And that's not good for a revolver being used for the real world. Life or death in other words. --Jcordell 23:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about adding this to your main page. I was working on it and I was also talking to my kids and dealing with the family pets (no not the kids). Guess I got distracted. Anyway glad to help. Also in all fairness to Taurus I am thinking of buying a Judge just as a "neat" revolver. Oh and that reminds me of something else. Somebody asked me about Charter Arms a few days ago. I would put that company in the same category as Taurus. It's come a long ways, but I'm still not sure about the consistency of it's Quality Control.Anyway talk to you later.--Jcordell 12:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the mid size snubbies are great revolvers.I own a Colt Mk III Lawman with a 2" barrel. It'a a real Bulldog. They also look cool as hell. But they aren't really designed to be concealed. I know there are people who make them work, but I think they're more belt or shoulder holster revolvers. I suppose if you wear a sports coat all the time it would work, but that's not me. My dad carried a Model 19 snubbie for a few years back in the 70's and he described it as heavy after a few hours and dense. He said that he was always worried about it printing. --Jcordell 17:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. The 642 is a good revolver. You might want to get Snap Caps so you can practice your dry firing without worrying about breaking your firing pin.I like them even with frame mounted firing pin designs like Ruger. Also you can practice loading. I use tem in all my firearms. Handguns, rifles and shotguns. I tell all our new officers to do dry-firing at least a couple times a week. It's helped me over the years. --Jcordell 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Pred's revolvers

Congrats on your CCP, Pred, and sounds like a good choice going with the 442(?) Smith. Sounds good man, hope you enjoy it. StanTheMan 01:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

An added feature! Well, not really. But hey, if it works. Sounds like you didn't pay too many pretty pennies for it at least. Speaking of Smiths, tell me, what's your experience with that 'bling-bling' 586 you got? Have you fired it recently? StanTheMan 02:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

- Cool, glad to know a bit. It is a full-size revolver so I'd expect it to have some weight, especially since it's bigger than K-frame. Anyway, thanks for the bit of knowledge, man. StanTheMan 03:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

banning user 125.233.23.5

His nowiki command was not necessarily vandalism. I've seen that mistake with noobs who know nothing of Wiki command structures. I wouldn't do a permanent ban, unless he has done something else wrong. mpm

Temporarily ban him again

But clearly tell why you are banning again. If he does it a fourth time, then permanently ban him. We can't have guys doing obviously stupid things and ignoring the mods. It MAY make IMFDB more 'nazi like' like some disaffected ex-members have accused us of, but seriously, the mods (and quality good members) waste so much time correcting inane and just dumb changes made by noobs. MoviePropMaster2008 01:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bah, why do people even do that? It should be obvious what the end result will be. Well I don't know. People who act like that have always just irked the living hell out of me. I mean.. that's just irritating. And I'm not one of the poor souls.. err wonderful guys who handle those things. StanTheMan 01:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: uploading images

I only edit it again so it appears in the screenshot category. Does it still appear in the category if you put the category part in the summary section? - Kenny99 00:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)