User talk:Quickload

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Caracal Pistol do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '[A-Za-z][0-9]{2,}\.photobucket\.com/albums/.*\.jpg' (link(s): http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/Caracal/untitled.jpg" http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/Caracal/th_untitled.jpg") . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page MP18 do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=f6VZlJk_mRE) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Caracal Pistol. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Versa geek 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Quickload's answer: Not knowing how it works exactly, I repost here a copy of my answer that appears on another page.

Warning about copyrights infringement about Caracal pistol page Hello.

"Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Caracal Pistol. "

I did not infringe any copyright since I am the author of the text I used and that is used in non commercial Caracal informative site I linked to exactly the same way I linked to a non commercial informative thread about the MP 18.1, the one I own being one of the 7 pieces known registered pieces in the world and the only one to be in full working original conditions. My professional activity as a fireams and ballistic expert allowed me to searh in depth the genesis of this new type of weapons during WW1 and after more than 15 years of search I could even find the descendant of the actors who played such an important role in history and technology. I am actually the only person in the world to be able to post pictures and videos of many mythical weapons like I did on some forums (I would like to upload some pictures on Wikipedia but I am not at ease with the upload process yet) The reason behind being able to do so I the fact that I spent years searching both for professional reasons and personal interest, my activity allowing me to own, use and study the material I post about.

I would like now to share this knowledge I acquired since I am changing course in my professional orientation and most of those in quest of informations in this field and more widely in History will greatly appreciate to have finally reliable informative datas and not hearsay and endless cut and paste from non verified sources.

Sincerely Edmond HUET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickload (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:FreikorpRitterVonEppMnchenMay1919.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:FreikorpRitterVonEppMnchenMay1919.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:France1918.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:France1918.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Theodore Bergmann.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Theodore Bergmann.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

The recent edit you made to MP18 constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Quickload's answer.

Excuse me , Sir! Where can I find some guidelines about this point. I don't think changing a paragraph title that says "History" to a more explicit "The genesis of modern warfare tools" when writing about the introduction of new warfare tactics and types of weapons can be called vandalism. But maybe I missed something somewhere.. Edmond HUET (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for the sandbox hint.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Freikorp Ritter von Epp Munich, May1919.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Freikorp Ritter von Epp Munich, May1919.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

Tag added

[edit] re: hi

hi, I change the image information template of the MP18 photo u had upload, becoz the old version description cannot be display, plx tell me if anything i do is incorrect.

Here is the information template for image description :

{{Information |Description= |Source= |Date= |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }}

Nice image and thx for the Gong He Fat Choi! : )--ZH Evers (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob, Thanks. Enjoy the Tsing Tao MP 18 pictures ;-)

Edmond HUET (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a lot of nice image :) , can i transfer some of those image to Wikimedia Commons than i can use in other language wikipedia?--ZH Evers (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thx again.--ZH Evers (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theodor Bergmann

Hi Quickload,

Can you please mention your references on the uppon mentionned articles ? All informations on WP should have references, books, websites, documents, etc. Thank you in advance and best regards. SalomonCeb (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

30 ans de collection, avoir manipulé l'intégralité des objets pour lesquels je poste des articles, avoir visité pour une bonne part les endroits où ils ont été fabriqués,avoir échangé pendant des années à leur sujet avec des professionnels et des collectionneurs passionnés sachant de quoi ils parlent, celà peut il être considéré comme une référence?

PS: voir la discussion en cours sur MP 18 "suomi" par laquelle je viens de démontrer à l'administrateur que l'auteur qu'il vénérait comme un dieu n'est qu'un faussaire....

Sincèrement Edmond HUET (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Je suis désolé, mais sur WP, il faut absolument des sources qui aient été publiées. Faute de telles sources, les articles que vous rédigez peuvent être effacés. Toute information doit être vérifiable par le lecteur. N'avez-vous, vraiment, aucune source publiée concernant Bergmann ? SalomonCeb (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Si, bien sur. Ezell and Smith qui ont eux même pompé sur Hans dieter Götz. mais la plupart des informations que j'ai découvert par moi même sont inédites et celà m'a entre autres permis d'infirmer ou de confirmer ce qui circulait sur le Bergmann MP 18 et l'histoire des pistolet mitrailleurs. A ce jour n'éxistaient que les 3 ou 4 mêmes photos et infos recopiées et republiées ad nauseam. qui a jamais parlé de l'atelier de Tsing Tao, province du Shandong, Chine et de son établissement par Heinrich Vollmer? (société éxistant encore de nos jours) sans parler d'avoir visité l'endroit en question en 1995.. Edmond HUET (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Je ne doute pas que vous ayez étudié le sujet, mais pour une encyclopédie, une source fiable est une source publiée. Avez-vous publié un ouvrage ? Si ce n'est pas le cas, il est nécessaire de mentionner une ou des sources. Par exemple, d'où proviennent les dates de naissance de Bergmann ? Est-il allemand ? etc. SalomonCeb (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Depuis le temps qu'on me le demande, je crois que je vais bientôt me laisser faire pour la publication. :-) Une source publiée? parmi les liens publiés dans wikipedia à ce sujet, aucun n'a eu en mains un exemplaire de l'objet de la publication, lorsque j'ai contacté l'un d'entre eux, il m'a affirmé en détenir 3 en refusant de me communiquer le numéro de série ou même une approximation 900 ou 33000, sans commentaire.. un des liens objet de litige avec l'administrateur finlandais qui le tient pour une source valide, fiable et vérifiée montre un MP 28 bricolé style MP 18 et les photos sont prises de façon à dissimuler la supercherie... Un des "experts" mondialement connu n'en a jamais vu un exemplaire ainsi que j'ai pu l'entendre dire tandis qu'un autre "expert" que j'ai rencontré n'a jamais disposé des autorisations lui permettant de détenir ce genre d'objet pour étude. Donc, qu'est qu'une source fiable? La date de naissance de Theodor Bergmann est la chose la plus facile à vérifier à l'état civil de sa ville de naissance et les automobiles Bergmann ont fait l'objet d'articles de magazines spécialisés. il était Allemand, je n'ai pu retouver aucune trace à ce jour encore de ce qu'est devenue la famille Bergmann après 1943, dernière date disponible conccernant l'éxistence d'une fabrique à Hambourg et l'autre à Berlin. Je vais donc citer en référence les ouvrages qui se recopient les uns les autres depuis 40 ans sans avoir rien vérifié ;-) Il est clair que mes affirmations étayées par des photos hautes définitions d'objets que personne n'avait encore vu à ce jour dérangent. Sincèrement

Edmond HUET (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cher Edmond,

Personnellement, les références concernant les armes et autres objets fabriqués par Bergmann m'intéressent assez peu. J'aimerais par contre avoir une référence concernant la biographie du personnage. Il est sans doute possible de se procurer son acte de naissance, mais encore faudrait-il que votre article dise, où il est né et sa nationalité. Mais peut-être ne le savez-vous pas ? C'est pourquoi il nous faut un ouvrage de référence. Cordialement. SalomonCeb (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Allemand, né à Gaggenau.C'est la première fois que je vois demander une précison sur la ville de naissance d'une personne citée dans wikipedia mais il est vrai que je suis un petit nouveau ici. Edmond HUET (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Edité. pas réveillé encore ce dimanche LOL né à Sailauf, décédé à Gaggenau ( même ciconscription administrative, Landkreis Aschaffenburg)

Très bien, nous progressons à pas de géant ! Pourriez-vous me faire un dernier immense plaisir ? Pourriez-vous m'indiquer un ouvrage ou je puisse trouver noir sur blanc que: Theodor Bergmann est né le 21 mai 1850 à Sailauf et mort le 23 mars 1931 à Gaggenau ?

Je ne fais pas toutes ces demandes dans le but de vous casser les pieds et accessoirement de perdre mon temps, mais Wikipedia en tant qu'encyclopédie ne peut publier des travaux inédits. Il faut donc qu'existe un ouvrage publié corroborant les informations contenues dans l'article. Une simple coupure de presse peut suffire, une nécrologie parue dans la Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ou dans le Figaro, mentionnant la date de publication, l'auteur de l'article et le journal. Cordialement. SalomonCeb (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alors là, désolé. Je ne pense pas que l'on puisse trouver celà dans le Figaro. Peut être le Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ou les délibérations du conseil municipal. Le papier étant très combustible, je ne pense pas que les archives du journal local aient survécu aux bombes reçues en quantité suffisante pour raser une partie de la ville en plus des usines automobiles locales fabriquant des véhicules militaires. Je vous suggère donc un week end sur place pour photgraphier les plaques de rue Theodor Bergmann Strasse. N'oubliez pas votre appareil digital.

Edmond HUET (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Bon courage, il reste encore à voir un zillion de pages bourrées d'erreurs et de çonneries.

Cher Edmond,

Ne croyez pas que les recherches historiques se fassent en photographiant les plaques des rues, elles se font bel et bien en consultant des ouvrages en papier, combustibles, mais quasi inusables depuis l'invention de l'informatique. La référence que je vous demandais se trouve dans:

Erich Keyser; Heinz Stoob, Deutsches Städtebuch, Handbuch städtischer Geschichte, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1939. (page 239) OCLC 7303597

En cliquant sur le lien, vous trouverez l'extrait du livre en question.

Cordialement. SalomonCeb (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Merci pour l'info, la photo des plaques de rue, c'était du second degré avec un soupçon d'agacement. En effet, quand je vois le tissu de çonneries publié ça et là et en particulier sur wikipedia, celà me tape légèrement sur le système de passer sous le microscope de cette façon. Cordialement Edmond HUET (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Justement, pour que nos lecteurs ne disent plus comme vous-même que Wikipedia est pleine de çonneries, il conviendrait sans doute que ceux, qui écrivent un article, veuillent bien citer leurs sources.

Accessoirement, ça permettrait aux petites mains, aux besogneux qui travaillent dans l'ombre, de ne pas avoir à faire des recherches longues et fastidieuses sur des sujets qui ne les intéressent que très modérément. Merci donc à l'avenir de bien vouloir mentionner vos sources, sans que l'on doive vous supplier. Best regards. SalomonCeb (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Bv000002.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bv000002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This pictures is a photoshopped picture of a XD shape imposed on a Caracal pistol, please tell me where the problem lies?

Edmond HUET (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Status added

Edmond HUET (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Ladegeraet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ladegeraet.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Made by myself as specified

Edmond HUET (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Status added

Edmond HUET (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Th._Bergmann_WB_inhaber.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Th._Bergmann_WB_inhaber.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

used the Old EU, ,indicating an image in public domain more than 70 years old

Edmond HUET (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Status added

Edmond HUET (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Freikorp_Ritter_von_Epp_Munich,_May1919.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Freikorp_Ritter_von_Epp_Munich,_May1919.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

used the Old EU, ,indicating an image in public domain more than 70 years old

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tsing_Tao_MP_18.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tsing_Tao_MP_18.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Made by myself as specified

Edmond HUET (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Status added

Edmond HUET (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:MP_18_Berlin_1919.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MP_18_Berlin_1919.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

used the Old EU, ,indicating an image in public domain more than 70 years old

Looks like I wrote the comments in the {{ }} except of writing the attribution,I have to discover how to edit and add it.

Status added

Edmond HUET (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source for 1901 German adoption of Luger pistol

Here, in Notes on Military Interest for 1901 By United States Military Information Division. War Dept, page 171, it notes that both the US and German militaries tested the Luger pistol starting in 1901, so it is logical that it would be referred to as the "P-01." The Swiss called it the OP00, having adopted it in 1900. scot (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not make it logic. P 08 means Pistole 08 or Pistol adopted in 1908. there is no P 01. Period.it's all about firearms. Let's be accurate.

and the word Parabellum refers to a Luger pistol, not to any pistol using the 9 mm Parabellum or the cartridge itself.

Edmond HUET (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

From dictionary.reference.com:

Main Entry: Parabellum Part of Speech: n Definition: a type of semiautomatic pistol or machine-gun; also called Luger, also written parabellum Etymology: Latin 'for war' Usage: proprietary

It's all about verifiability. I can't verify that P-01 was used for the Luger pistol, Midway says it was, and I can't contradict them. Webster's says "parabellum" is used to refer to the pistol or machine gun, and that's a verifiable, reliable source; I can even go further and find sources from as far back as 1903 referring to the model 1900 as the "Parabellum", so it's not used exclusively the P-08. And, just like you can call any firearm chambering the .40 S&W a ".40 S&W", reguardless of make or model, people call any firearm chambering the 9mm Parabellum a "9mm Parabellum". scot (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

read again, I wrote "Parabellum refers to Luger pistols" where did I say it refers exclusively to the P 08. Midway is a shop and I dare to say they wrote BS. It's all about verifiablity, indeed. There is no Parabellum or Luger adopted anywhere in 1901, there is no P 01.

It's all about accuracy, too.

[edit] Bibliography

Imperial Lugers by Jan C. Still (Still's Books - 1994)
Third Reich Lugers by Jan C. Still (Still's Books - 1988)
Weimar Lugers by Jan C. Still (Still's Books - 1993)
Lugers at Random by Charles Kenyon (Hand Gun Press - 1990)
Luger Mechanical Features by Gerard Henrotin (H&L Publishing - 2002)
The Luger Models by Gerard Henrotin (H&L Publishing - 2001)
The Luger Producers by Gerard Henrotin (H&L Publishing - 2001)
Luger Accessories by Gerard Henrotin (H&L Publishing - 2003)
DWM Luger by Gerard Henrotin (H&L Publishing - 2001)

[edit] References

[edit] See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

P08 Parabellum

[edit] External links

Edmond HUET (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Direct impingement

Just a note on your edits to this article. The MAS vents right at the bolt face and actually fouls worse than the AR-15 system. Further, the Tappet system on the M1 Carbine has only one hole... that one to the barrel and vents back into the barrel. FN SCAR has the same system. --Asams10 (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I use both MAS and AR 15 rifles for 30 years and the MAS rifle gas adduction is the cleaner system because it is calibrated to just deliver the necessary quantity of gas. I have spent enogh time to clean both to know as well as many others. The AR 15 vents a huge quantity of gas, that was advertised as being a self cleaning system, LOL. by the way, the breech face of the MAS does not receive any gas, they go into a milled slot in the carrier.When is last time you clean a US M1 ? the excess gasses are vented back inside the barrel ? quite a strange physical phenomenom... There is no excess gas because of the short stroke gas piston. Once the gas piston has received an impulse from the gasses, the bullet already exited the barrel and the pressure is down to atmospheric pressure.

Cheers

Edmond HUET (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't qualify my expertise with the Carbine beyond saying that, to answer your question, two weeks ago. I'm not sure you understand the basic operating principles. When fired, the M1 Carbine (and SCAR) have a piston that moves a short distance, pushing the bolt carrier back. At the end of this travel, the piston stops against a shoulder and the remaining gas in the system goes out the only outlet it has, the port in the barrel. There is no denying this... this is a statement of fact.

I've also owned, though not currently, an MAS-49 and it does, indeed, deposit tons of carbon on the bolt face. In fact, after a few boxes of ammo, the fouling is clearly visible in lessening quantities the further you get from the end of the tube, similar to the carbon on the front of the slid on automatic pistols after a similar number of rounds. It's a fact. After probably a million or two rounds downrange and a few thousand cleaning sessions with hundreds of types of firearms, I'd have to say I've been around the block. It does foul more than virtually every other style of semi-automatic firearm I've operated save the M-16, AK-47, and of course rimfires. The AK-47 actually vents copious quantities back into the action... it vents directly to the rear for some ungodly reason. The AKM attempted to solve this with vent holes closer to the front of the stroke... but that's a different story. --Asams10 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Once the impulse is given to the piston and the bullet has exited the barrel of the M1, there is no more gas to be pushed back into the barrel because the amount of gas that gave the initial impulse is limited due to the diameter of hole in barrel.there is not a "pocket" of gasses to be pushed back. For the MAS, I would say check the fit between the gas tube and its hole in the bolt carrier, change your powder for the right type, it is too slow burning.

-)

Edmond HUET (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

""This is not original research. The face of the tube is direcly in line with the face of the bolt once the bolt carrier begins to move. Take it to discussion; you're wrong.) ""

Yeah, sure,

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/MAS%20FSA/FSAMASappui2.jpg http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/MAS%20FSA/coupe3.jpg http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/MAS%20FSA/coupe2.jpg http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/MAS%20FSA/Coupe1.jpg

Edmond HUET (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, the end of the gas tube is about 1/2 inch from the face of the bolt as the bolt unlocks. You're showing me scans out of a book? How about looking at a real gun. Just pulled this up on Google... Action open. Now, are you speaking from experience like I am or are you trying to make this up as you go. --Asams10 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How long do gasses come out of this tube? you have your answer. The rest does not even worth an answer.

Edmond HUET (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a rhetorical question. The ONLY vent other than back down the tube and into the barrel is out the end of the tube at the moment the action opens. It's at between 30-100psi at that point but due to the miniscule volume, pressure drops in an instant and, at that instant, solids instantly solidify on the action parts... didn't I say this already? You keep making gotcha statements and not backing them up. It's okay to be wrong. --Asams10 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Get a MAS, shoot it with a paper held slightly above the front of the receiver.Enough said.

Edmond HUET (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see there is no arguing with you on this one. You refuse to accept the possibility you're wrong. Good day, sir. --Asams10 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. I just fired my first MAS in 1975 when I joined ROTC and I have used, cleaned and maintained enough of them for more than 30 years to have a clear idea how it works. I have no problem admitting that I am wrong. When I am wrong.

Edmond HUET (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You asked

Since you asked who my source is, it is Kevin Dockery. As you might or might not know, Kevin Dockery was a gunsmith, and he was the armorer in the President's Guard for Nixon and Ford. Somehow I get the feeling that he knows about the Colt 9mm SMG. Add to that the fact that my statement has a citation from a reliable source. Unless you have a reliable source showing my statement to be false, please do not revert or undo my edit again.--LWF (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. so please enlighten us and tell us what was improved. Inquiring minds want to know. Edmond HUET (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My source doesn't say. Yet you have once again decided to remove a referenced statement. Saying that you want to know what was improved is not an acceptable rationale for removing a referenced statement. Since you did ask, I now plan on calling Colt tomorrow and asking them myself. With luck, they will give me the information needed. Until then, I encourage you to add the properly referenced statement back to the article.--LWF (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please post the reference to the statement and point to what was improved and not just the title of a book saying it states that something was improved. That's just hear say in a more sophisticated way. I challenge you on this point based on experience I have of both magazines, on talks I had with US suppliers for these magazines and on conversions I performed myself. When I use the a book as a reference to say for example the AG 42 has been improved and became the AG 42 B , it is clearly documented wich points have been improved like the stainless steel gas tube, the new bolt cover or the reinforced stock. this is fact, this information, this is not hearsay.

Edmond HUET (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I sent a message to a US friend who was part of the unit you cite at the moment you cite, so we'll have a clear answer by someone who can say " been there, done that" And I say it again, Colt took a magazine that had been proven reliable and sturdy http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/ModifiedUZImag.jpg milled a slot in it to make it operational in their SMG and finally made a cheap elevator to make more bucks. The converted mags are much reliable than Colt mags as you will find on many NFA shooters forums where people have experience.

Dockery isn't specific on what was improved, but he says:

The magazine well was fitted with an adapter block that was pinned in place and allowed the 9 mm weapon to originally operate with converted Uzi submachine gun magazines. Later, Colt improved on the magazine design and produced their own version for use with the 9 mm series of guns.

I will also point out that one could make the point that sending an e-mail to your friend is going against WP:VERIFY, and possibly even WP:OR, which is why I plan on going to Colt and asking what was changed. While I do not doubt that your friend at least would mean well, I believe Colt is a better source on what they themselves changed. Also, while I will assume good faith of those involved on the NFA forums you have referred to, forums do not meet WP:RS, so we can not use those as citations. Frankly, I'd just like to figure out what information is correct, so we can improve the article. Could we please go back to the referenced version in the interim, until we can get a reliable source that is specific about the changes? I will not personally revert it, as I have seen too many edit wars escalate drastically when someone reverts while waiting for information.--LWF (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the informations. My friend is able to tell me the exact qualification of the guy you cited and wether his unit used this SMG or not. Anyway, I do not hold in high esteem someone saying something has been improved without saying in wich manner. That is very unprofessional. you want to have this guy's book as reference, go for it and revert the edition, I give up. I devoted much more time to this point that it worths. I understand now how inaccuracies are so common in WP.

Edmond HUET (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? At the moment I can't tell if you think Dockery is qualified, and if you think the information is inaccurate or merely unprofessional.--LWF (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know wether he is qualified yet but he is unprofessional and the information is inaccurate. The original metal elevator of the UZI mag has been replaced by plastic elevator in the Colt manufactured mags. being short and more flexible, it is the main cause of jams especially when the spring starts to wear out a bit. This is not what I call an improved design. But it cost 50 cents less per mag...

Edmond HUET (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Quickload

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 2008

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:FreikorpRitterVonEppMnchenMay1919.jpg

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:France1918.jpg

[edit] Your recent edits

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Theodore Bergmann.jpg

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Freikorp Ritter von Epp Munich, May1919.jpg

[edit] re: hi

[edit] Theodor Bergmann

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Bv000002.jpg

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Ladegeraet.jpg

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Th._Bergmann_WB_inhaber.jpg

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Freikorp_Ritter_von_Epp_Munich,_May1919.jpg

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tsing_Tao_MP_18.jpg

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:MP_18_Berlin_1919.jpg

[edit] Source for 1901 German adoption of Luger pistol

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] References

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Direct impingement

[edit] You asked

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search