User talk:Quickload

Speedy deletion nomination of Fusil Automatique Modele 1917

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fusil Automatique Modele 1917 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fusil Automatique Modele 1917

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fusil Automatique Modele 1917 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Fusil Automatique Modele 1917. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Edmond HUET (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's explain this.

The section is called "early notable semi-automatic rifles." You're trying to add the following:

STA 1922: as far as I can tell, an automatic submachine gun and a copy of the MP18. Doesn't even belong on the article.
MAC 1928: Experimental rifle. Not notable in this context.
SE MAS 35: Incredibly limited production rifle that really has no importance of any kind, since a bolt-action rifle was adopted instead.
Various MAS 49s: Bizarre to list them all seperately, and all the pre-49 ones didn't really amount to much, while the 49 itself is rather too late to be considered an "early" semi-auto rifle.
MAS 62: Selective fire and a production run of 60. Doesn't belong in the article.

I'm utterly mystified by your belief that the PA-15 belongs anywhere on the page, being a random, unremarkable semi-auto pistol from 1975. You obviously still don't understand what the policy WP:UNDUE means; giving excessive emphasis to unimportant side-issues like listing every French semi-auto (and some weapons which aren't semi-autos or even rifles) as if they're notable is not how articles are supposed to be written. The article doesn't include also-rans like the Johnson M1941, so it shouldn't include these either. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Druber, since I did not wwrite anything about the PA 15 for instance, I suggest you either put doiwn the bottle, consult your GP or both. There's an improvement, at least. You dont just say "shut up" anymore. Those Menuneior rifles and RSC 1917 citations are not undue, they are linked directly to the "early notable simi auto rifle' paragraph, just like the picture of the RSC 1917. THere was an STA 1922 SMG, a STA 1922 LMG and a STA 1922 semi auto rifle, the SMG was abandonned, the LMG was the base of the first Czech LMG and the French 1924, the rifle was the base of the long lineage of developed rifles that made the MAS 35, MAS 38/39, MAS 40 (that was adopted) MAS 44, 49, 49/56, 54 and 62.

Newxt, you will tell us the Earth is flat?

Edmond HUET (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The various MAS rifles are not important to the overall history of semi-auto rifles (to the point they don't even seem to have their own articles): they would be footnotes even in an article specifically about French semi-auto development, let alone about semi-autos in general; the MAS 40 was at best barely adopted, the others weren't at all in any quantity until the 49. And once again, the 62 was a select-fire rifle, not a semi-auto at all. "Notable" does not refer to an entire line of obscure prototypes and barely-fielded weapons with tiny production runs; again, the article doesn't even feature weapons like the Johnson M1941. As for citations, as per the previous discussion, you're still not using them correctly; you cite inline in the article for the thing that needs citing, you don't just add random citations at the end of the article for no apparent reason. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MAS 62 as derived from the other MAS is a select firej OK. Let's forget it. Does it justify your constant removal of mentions of the other semi auto rifles that were not as you say a foot note but the milestone of other developments just like the study of develoipment history shows (see similar designs in the M1 Garand that were found in the RSC 1917 that was being studied at Springfield Arsenal when John Garand was there..) Does it justify removal of the mention of Meunier rifles that were the outcome of studies from 1890 to 1910 and that provided technical solutions used in many rifles later. Does it justify the removal of the RSC 1917 picture?

Looks like a reason unknown to me, you plainly try to remove any trace of French development in this field.

Edmond HUET (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A milestone is not notable in a general description of a road, only the things it connects are. There is no reason to list every meaningless prototype and low-production weapon in a general article about semi-automatics under a heading saying the listed weapons are "notable" examples. Maybe this section belongs in a specific article about French semi-automatic weapons, but it does not belong in a general one. We list the most important early weapons only; here, that would be the RSC 1917, given it was actually adopted and produced in meaningful numbers. The Meunier was never adopted in meaningful quantities, so hardly qualifies as a notable weapon.

If you can provide clear citations that back up anything you're claiming about the importance of the Meunier, it might have a place in the article too, but as-is you don't even describe why any of these weapons are supposed to be important. As it stands, the list adds nothing to the article and is absolutely useless.

Feel free to make as many bizarre allegations about my motives as you like, but this article is not about French development, it is about general development. Any description of a specific country's semi-auto work is at most going to feature the most important weapons, not every single weapon of the type. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French development atre part of development of armaments, period? I cite my references and if you only read the linked article, you would have understood that the Meunier is the first adopted reliable rifle firing a high velocity round. The paragraph is "early notable design" says it all. These relatively unknown rifles (due to the secrecy the French used during their development and introduction plus the fact most disappeared and many documents were destroyed in 1940) habve been the source of inspiration for many other designs seen in the Garand, the Lungmann AG 42 and its offsprings, etc..

I can't help to notice that your MO is removing anything related to French designers and their inventions.

Edmond HUET (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great images!

... of the gas operating cycles. Any chance you could do one of the long stroke? Yours are better than the one that's there now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:WaltJPG1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:WaltJPG1.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Walt Langendorfer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walt Langendorfer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Langendorfer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Dcb-shooting rhino RhinoUp.jpg

The file File:Dcb-shooting rhino RhinoUp.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.