Geodkyt

Welcome!

Hello, Geodkyt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Victuallers (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

References

I have a proposal. Scan in the relevant bits of your sources that define short and long stroke action and either e-mail or post a link to the images on the talk page, so we can all look at the source text, and come to an agreement based on that. I fear that unless we can ALL see the sources, and hash out who says what, and document that, that we're never going to come to an agreement on this. scot (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't get the primary texts to a book scanner, and I'm not slapping these texts on flat bed scanner and damaging the spines. Most of these books are old, out of print, and expensive.

Luckily, the ones I have inserted cites for into the article are readily available, either as scanned images online, or through public libraries (may require inter-library loan if it's a small library). In the discussion page, I have cited by page number -- but the sheer number of cites from the same works that ALL come back to supporting two paragraphs woul simply clog the article into illegibility if added inline. Accordingly, they are added to the section title as general references.

Two years ago, one user added a section on piston system definitions with unsourced definitions. He later added source cites -- but one link iss dead, one link was off-topic (concerned automobile engines, not guns), and one source (later added by another editor) didn't support the assertion (it contradicted it). In short, the assertion was still unsourced.

The current kerfluffle is much the same way -- unsourced assertions from an editor who has:

1. Challenged my literacy or my integrity, by insisting that the sources I offered didn't support my assertions.

2. Challenged my professional qualifications (not that they would be relevant, but I went ahead and complied, as he asked).

3. Engaged in personal attacks against 3rd parties wholly unrelated to the argument at hand. (Frankly, Mikhail Kalashnikov may well be a drunk, braggart, and liar n his personal life. He could well shoot smack while tossing kittens into a fireplace for all I know. And this is relevant to his engineering capability and qualifications to describe his own invention, how? [smile])

4. When actually provided quotes, with page number cites from the sources he had earlier claimed did not support my assertions, he turned around and started insisting that the sources were unreliable. (He has yet to provide ANY sources of his own that support his claims, however. . . )

5. When provided quotes from his own sources, that contradicted his claims (falsifiying your sources or claiming that they say one thing when they say another is reprehensible), he ignored them, and claimed to be too busy to read.

6. Continues to make a factually false (mechanically impossible, as can be verified by simply looking at the drawings) assertion to support his unsourced opinion (effectively engaging in simultaneous "original research" and research fraud), and ignoring the fact that, even if his assertion as to teh mechanics of his example were true, it would not change the fact that his technical definition is not support by the reputable sources anywhere.

7. Continues to revert sourced material to an unsourced version that corresponds with his opinion.

This "controversy" isn't actually a controversy -- it is a fringe minority opinion that doesn't even have UNreliable sources versus the standard technical references for the field in question. Geodkyt (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Copied from another user's talk page:

The current kerfluffle is much the same way -- unsourced assertions from an editor who has:

1. Challenged my literacy or my integrity, by insisting that the sources I offered didn't support my assertions.

Yes, I did. You provided sources. Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Challenged my professional qualifications (not that they would be relevant, but I went ahead and complied, as he asked).

Yep. You were making unsourced assertions that I assumed were from an expert, yet you didn't list your credentials to make such assertions. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Engaged in personal attacks against 3rd parties wholly unrelated to the argument at hand. (Frankly, Mikhail Kalashnikov may well be a drunk, braggart, and liar n his personal life. He could well shoot smack while tossing kittens into a fireplace for all I know. And this is relevant to his engineering capability and qualifications to describe his own invention, how? [smile])

Yeah, Kalashnikov is a drunk and a braggart, but I Didn't call him an outright liar IIRC. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

4. When actually provided quotes, with page number cites from the sources he had earlier claimed did not support my assertions, he turned around and started insisting that the sources were unreliable. (He has yet to provide ANY sources of his own that support his claims, however. . . )

Yep, many of your sources had it wrong, some had it half right. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

5. When provided quotes from his own sources, that contradicted his claims (falsifiying your sources or claiming that they say one thing when they say another is reprehensible), he ignored them, and claimed to be too busy to read.

I'm not making edits to the article, just talking on the talk page and trying to keep you from making edits to the article till the discussion is over. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Continues to make a factually false (mechanically impossible, as can be verified by simply looking at the drawings) assertion to support his unsourced opinion (effectively engaging in simultaneous "original research" and research fraud), and ignoring the fact that, even if his assertion as to teh mechanics of his example were true, it would not change the fact that his technical definition is not support by the reputable sources anywhere.

Mechanically impossible? Dude, the distance traveled under pressure is the same. I could give a damn if the piston goes along for an unpressurized ride or not. Apparently, you trust everything you read and know without first giving it a reality check. I'll inspect the firearms YOU design closely before I fire them. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Continues to revert sourced material to an unsourced version that corresponds with his opinion.

You have failed to make a good or even workable attempt at inline citations, so I revert your bad edits. Give it another try. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This "controversy" isn't actually a controversy -- it is a fringe minority opinion that doesn't even have UNreliable sources versus the standard technical references for the field in question. Geodkyt (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that I might agree with most of what your saying, but disagree with your tone and lack of critical thinking on the matter. The fact is that you're going whining to third parties instead of engaging me in a genuine discussion on the basic facts of this. You refuse to accept that it's minutely possible most of the sources are wrong. Your source, Smith, qualifies the discussion by making sure he uses the proper term, "tappet" alongside the commonly accepted misnomer, "short-stroke". Has ANYBODY ever played Devil's advocate with you? Is it possible that in your narrow, heavilly sourced world you might have actually been incorrect? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

1. If you bothered to read the second post on this page, you would see that I didn't go to third parties -- he came to me.

2. "Lack of critical thinking" is an interesting accustation from someone who openly states he doesn't bother to read the contrary evidence offered.

3. Still waiting on a shred of source references that support your claim.

4. I have been frequently corrected, as have all people. If you happen to actually produce credible source references to support your allegations, I will acknowledge that you have some credibility to your assertion. Until then, however, your assertions amount to nothing more than your unsupported opinions, in the face of contradictory support.

5. Re-read Smith (P.89, The Book of Rifles) again -- in the provided quotes, he carefully delineates between long-stroke operation and short stroke system. Re-read the other cites offered -- where "time under gas pressure" or "motion under gas pressure" for the piston is mentioned AT ALL, they invariably mention teh extremely brief period of time this pressure is available to the piston. Roughly, it is only available for the period of time between when the bullet passes the gas port until the bullet leaves the muzzle (as Hatcher, WHB Smith, Ezell, and Chinn all explicitly state, this pressure effectively drops off at the same time the breech pressure does). The also mention the fact that the breech must be kept locked until this pressure has dropped (otherwise, we would be talking about an UNlocked system, like a simple blowback gun).

Try this piece of critical thinking. All other things being equal, the typical short stroke system has it's gas port closer to the breech than a long stroke system. (Witness the gas port position on the only long-stroke gun you have openly admitted is long stroke -- the Garand.) The short stroke system has it's gas piston under gas pressure for a LONGER period of time -- simply beause the bullet takes longer to move between the gas port position (opening the system to gas pressure) and teh muzzle (venting the gas pressure again.)

Your own insistance that the delination of "short stroke systems are under gas pressure for only a brief period of the operating stroke, while long stroke systems like the Garand are under gas pressure for the whole stroke" also falls apart before teh Garand's operating rod (pushed by teh gas piston) has moved more than 5/16", the gas pressure has dropped off. Your example of an archtypical long stroke system doesn't even function in the manner you insist is NECESSARY to classfiy it as long stroke.

Geodkyt (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gas-operated reloading. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)