The Bren Ten dimensions you asked for:

Weight

• 38 oz standard models
• ? oz compact models (must be lighter compared to the standard models, since the barrel and slide is shorter)
• 28 oz pocket model

Length

• 8.75 in standard models
• 7.75 in compact models
• 6.90 in pocket model

Barrel length

• 5.00 in standard models
• 4.00 in compact models
• 3.75 in pocket model

Width

• 1.25 in standard and compact models
• 1.00 in pocket model

Height

• 5.75 in standard and compact models
• 5.12 in pocket model

Effective range

• 50 yd (for what that is worth in a sidearm)

Good luck with converting US customary units to metric units. Do not be afraid of loss of accuracy. I think a 1 mm precision level will suffice on external gun dimensions. If you want to be accurate 0.1 mm might also be used. The parts where accuracy matters most (barrels, chambers and cartridges) are standardized by C.I.P. up to 0.01 mm precision level.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Koalorka (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this another example of the "Mexico vandal"? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Most likely. No source, no verification, IP user... Almost guaranteed. Koalorka (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any information to verify the source of Image:B-25J Bomber.jpg, which is an image you uploaded. I am being challenged at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Chappuis.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively can you find another suitable image at flickr that would be a substitute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. Good luck with your nomination. Koalorka (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear that Republic of Kosovo's police force uses the Glock 17, Glock 19 & MP5 as I have shown in a video and photos also the official website. But User talk:Koalorka who bring political and nationalistic propaganda are ruing the article by stupid remarks that Kosova is not a country. That is a whole different topic and has nothing to do with this, and maybe he should complain to the 50+ countries that recognize Kosova as a state. STOP violating the rules or you will be blocked, by admins. 82.35.32.75 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nie wiedziałem ze znasz język polski lepiej niż ja. Ale niech Ci będzie, jak już kiedyś pisałem bzdury i błędy na en-wiki to nie mój problem. Przy okazji zdejmij szablon merge z rkm wz. 1928 i szczeniaka bo jak widać poparcie dla twojej propozycji jest dokładnie zerowe. Nemo5576 (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A nagłówek infoboxu i podpis pod grafiką od kiedy jest zdaniem? Nemo5576 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Jakie? Jeśli to zdanie (a właściwie równoważnik zdania) to na końcu powinna być kropka :) A jeśli nie jest to zdanie (a właściwie równoważnik zdania) to powinno być małą literą bo nie ma żadnego powodu żeby było dużą. Nemo5576 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Przypomne tylko, ze tu obowiazuja zasady j. angielskiego. From the MoS:

"Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 12.32: Syntax, punctuation, and capitalization. A caption may consist of a word or two, an incomplete or a complete sentence, several sentences, or a combination. No punctuation is needed after a caption consisting solely of an incomplete sentence. If one or more full sentences follow it, each (including the opening phrase) has closing punctuation. In a work in which most captions consist of full sentences, even incomplete ones may be followed by a period for consistency. Sentence capitalization is recommended in all cases except for the formal titles of works of art." Koalorka (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Niezłe. Tylko analogicznie na pl-wiki (i na angielskiej zresztą też) powinno być mg34 bo w języku polskim i angielskim w odróżnieniu od niemieckiego rzeczowników nie piszemy duża literą. A zapis który obecnie jest w infoboxie jest po prostu mylący. i sugeruje że nazwa kbk wz. 89 jest pisana duża literą. A tak po prostu nie jest. Ale jak pisałem nie mój problem, będę miał najwyżej kolejny argument jak ktoś będzie mi opowiadał bajki o wyższości merytorycznej en-wiki :) Przypominam o zdjęciu pewnych szablonów z pewnych artykułów. Skoro po kilku miesiącach pies z kulawą noga nie przyznał Ci racji, to chyba ich istnienie jakichś nienaruszalnych reguł nie narusza. Nemo5576 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, mogę być i nikim ;) Nemo5576 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just undid your [change as of 06:57, 21 December 2008 to the article Fallschirmjäger. A photograph shouldn't be removed, based on a single users definition of inappropriate content, as per WP:NOTCENSORED. For the same reason WP:IUP doesn't mention anything about appropriate or inappropriate content of photos. Kind regards Hebster (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If these devices are actual useful gun sights is mostly dependant on the point of view of the person you ask this question. Some feel they best belong in dramatic action movies, since there are less complex low light situation sights available. On the other hand lots of sellers of aiming aids and "tactical" kit try to convince you they are a must have for low light situations and making “bad guys” scared. Since these devices are available for lots of contemporary hand gun models, I suppose there is enough clientele for them. --Francis Flinch (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Francis, I'm not questioning the utility of the device, just the terminology. Is it actually a "gun sight". I've alsways considered pointers to be an aiming aid. Koalorka (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Koalorka, The first internet dictionary I found and tried defines laser sight as: a device on a firearm that uses a laser to pinpoint impact (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/laser%20sight). Laser pointer was defined as: a small pointing device that emits an intense beam of light and used during presentations to point out items on visuals (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/laser%20pointer). I am no language specialist and can not judge the quality of this online dictionary, but it indicates laser sight and laser pointer have different meanings. When you use this online dictionary the “Nearby Entries” list lots of other laser related language concepts too. --Francis Flinch (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:StG 77 mit AG-C.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry... God you're sad, you spend your life studying guns, get a life, who cares about my name change, it's the proper name for the weapon anyway, so don't act like a teacher, obssessive control freak #rolleyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07ed01 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Super cool story bro. Koalorka (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Koalorka/Userboxes/No-Turkey, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Koalorka/Userboxes/No-Turkey and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Koalorka/Userboxes/No-Turkey during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –xeno^talk 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. ^ Withdrawn. –xeno^talk 02:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The photo File:Stepanov RPK-74.jpg, which you uploaded on Wikipedia, has been transferred to Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately someone has filed a deletion request, claiming that there is no evidence of permission by the photographer. Could you please explain the situation at the deletion discussion page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stepanov RPK-74.jpg ? Sv1xv (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_ownership_and_personal_attacks_by_User_Koalorka. Mfield (Oi!) 05:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks per ANI discussion. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A note of support

Just wanted to say I disagree completely with this block and that I think it's a crock. There's something very wrong when a random user can appear out of nowhere, mess around with article layouts, and then get prominent editors blocked for disagreeing with them. Commander Zulu (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Advanced trolling. This one can maunuever around policies rather effectively. Not that he'll be able to change anything. The "new" layout established on the MilHist discussion page is a mirror copy of a page layout I had proposed almost a year ago. So he's wasted a good deal of time re-inventing something that's been around in the same form for a long time. The futility of his butthurt crusade is entertaining and somewhat sad. 173.34.97.54 (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the editor wasn't "blocked for disagreeing with them." This editor was blocked for repeat offenses of WP:NPA per consensus on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that. By punishing greatly exaggerated NPA violations, your block excluded me from the ongoing dispute, and had the effect of basically blocking me for disagreeing with the agitator. 173.34.97.54 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You never participated in the discussion that you demanded take place even before you were blocked. The substance of our discussion is that subsections are allowed and that the guidelines are not strict rules that will be followed exactly by every article. Some guy (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to stop

I agree that User:Some guy has been baiting you and Nukes4Tots - but I can't help the situation going forwards if you keep doing things like very transparently evading the block you got for being really rude to him.

You aren't helping yourself by block evasion. It just makes you look bad to other administrators.

Please take the two weeks off and let me deal with the baiting situation if it continues after that.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the latest personal attack from your talk page. I've extended your block to 1 month and removed your ability to edit this page since it appears you are uninterested in appealing the block, rather perpetuating the offenses that got you blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started an ANI discussion on Some guy: WP:ANI#Some guy You may want to email me comments for posting there. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stepanov RPK-74.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --billinghurst (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits without explanation. We had a very long discussion at MilHist and established a consensus agreement that subsections are acceptable. I don't want to go back into fighting and edit warring. Some guy (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am reworking the page. It is in progress. Your edition was illogical. Koalorka (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't tell me I am not allowed to work on a page because you are working on it. Could you please explain how my addition was illogical? Some guy (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I just did. The definition for the word "illogical" can be looked up easily. Koalorka (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a circular definition. Saying it is illogical because it is illogical doesn't explain why it's illogical. Since this conversation isn't really going anywhere, and what you did with the page is good, I'll leave off. I hope we can avoid edit battles and confrontations. Some guy (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 1 week for your edits at Emu War. — RockMFR 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding... 1 week? Looks like you're not qualified to perform admin duties. Koalorka (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File:German Navy P8 Pistol.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:German Navy P8 Pistol.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:German Navy P8 Pistol.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I discussed your block with RockMFR and then posted to WP:ANI - [1].

There's a consensus there that the block was not in keeping with best practices, and I am unblocking your account shortly.

However, there was also significant discussion that the humoristic military campaign aspect of the Emu War article is probably inappropriate. I would like to warn you not to re-add the military campaign infobox to the article or make similar edits, unless a consensus (as determined by an Article Requests for Comment on the talk page) concludes that it is in fact appropriate. I don't think that humor is entirely inappropriate, but it was a wildlife management issue, not a battle. Mentioning in the text that it was considered humorous, as it does now, seems fine to me.

Please do not provoke or attack administrator User:RockMFR - he seems to have believed in good faith that your edit was destructive, and though that has been concluded to be an overreaction your edit was at least stretching things and questionable.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The topic is so silly I could not resist. I didn't mean to consume your time, but thanks. Koalorka (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey geezer, welcome back, take care not to carry on the dispute. Enjoy, be happy Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, thanks. Who the heck are you? Koalorka (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a passer-by, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Mini-Uzi Stock Folded.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file showing no evidence that the copyright holder has released it under the license indicated by the uploader which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _→AzaToth 19:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, re. the above - unfortunately simply writing that you have written permission does not satisfy the terms of the licensing,, you need to file an OTRS ticket to log the permission officially. Please see Wikipedia:Contact_us/Permit for information on what information to supply and where. If the OTRS ticket is not forthcoming the image will unfortunately have to be deleted. Any questions please ask. Mfield (Oi!) 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did just that. OTRS approval is pending. I'll advise as soon as I receive confirmation. Koalorka (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should contact the folks at Western Firearms and ask them to place a license for their pictures on the webpage, that way there's no debate, we just have to direct people to the license. You feeling up to it Koalorka?--LWF (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to abuse their generosity. The OTRS people are on it now anyway, we'll know in the next few days. Koalorka (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Koalorka. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Ani#personal_attack_from_recently_unblocked_User:_Koalorka. Exxolon (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Koalorka, and thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:Firearms#Pop_culture to me - I was dismayed to see such a trivial section in what is otherwise a good article on the Heckler & Koch MP5. Wikipedia in its wisdom does it again! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey no problem. Looks like you've been doing some good work on the project pages, check out the WikiProject page and eyeball the SOPs. If you feel so inclined, sign up! We could use some more enthusiastic editors to reinvigorate our efforts. Koalorka (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARockMFR&diff=309332247&oldid=309145411. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Goddammit.... Why do I even bother? Koalorka (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Copied on WP:ANI and the users' talk pages and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions)

I'm going to one-up that. Every location in which Koalorka and Theserialcomma are butting heads has multiple uninvolved administrators participating. Their interactions have overwhelmingly been either baiting or attacking each other, and completely unrelated to article content, for a while now. Given that there's always an admin looking over their shoulder, they have no need to be reporting each other to ANI or WQA (or 3RR or anywhere else - someone else who can act will notice), and that they are unable to interact in a constructive manner, and that both have risen to the level of disruptive in responding to the other...

Koalorka and Theserialcomma are topic banned on each other. Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards.

If one violates, and no response is forthcoming within twelve hours, the other may make a single line notification to an uninvolved administrator with a link to the topic ban and the diff of the particular edit which violated it. If no response is forthcoming within 18 hours, a second admin, and if no response is forthcoming within 24 hrs a post to ANI with the same information. In no case may either party engage in additional discussion unless asked direct questions by uninvolved admins.

You both go to your corners and stay there. If one comes out swinging, they go down. If you both start swinging, you both go down.

Lest there be any question about it - this disruptive behavor on both of your parts has at this point exceeded community patience and the sum of your positive contributions to Wikipedia. Stop, or your tenures on Wikipedia are at the end. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Beretta Modello 3842.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I only have the following visual proof:

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=247673989918928834&ei=GrmbSpTqNsfJ-AaFj4mBCw&q=Georgian+Army+Parad

Notice the guy at the left in 2:08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.19.132 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to positively identify the soldiers as Georgian. Koalorka (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)