User talk:Loafiewa
| This is Loafiewa's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
STOP[edit]
Stop. Don't edit "List of Assault Rifle" article again, your edits are already quite damaging and the potential to cause misinformation. We believe that the article is filled in according to the existing facts, talking about the validity of the sources listed whether they are independent or not, of course the sources listed are valid. If you still have doubts about this, we can advise you to read more of the existing sources, both in the article and those that have not been included in it. I think you have understood this appeal. 36.80.171.174 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The standard inclusion criteria is that an entry needs an independent article in order to be added to a list article, as outlined by WP:WTAF and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Loafiewa (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Then fix it but don't delete the existing data and subjects. In our opinion, it is enough to add some data that is valid and independent, there is no need to require the deletion of existing subjects just because they do not meet the criteria you are referring to. We hope you understand what we mean. 2001:448A:4008:23FA:E2DE:269E:A4BC:89F1 (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- The criteria I refer to is site policy. If you continue to disruptively edit against these core content policies, which all users are expected to follow (even if you personally don't like them), then I will have to request semi-protection. Loafiewa (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I have read the terms and conditions you stated. we conclude that you are only following the rules created by Wikipedia. However, we think this is not the right solution, because some data that does not have an article on Wikipedia does not mean it is invalid. we assume that simply adding what is missing such as independent data is enough for the reader. We realize and understand that some of the data contained in the article "list of assault rifles" does not yet have an article on Wikipedia and not everyone is willing to create one due to pure ignorance of the description of the subject data. However, with a heavy heart, we regret what you did to this article because what you deleted apparently already had an article on Wikipedia, whether it was a stand-alone article or an article within a related article. We ask that you return some and/or all of the data that you deleted in this article. 36.80.167.234 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- stop your nonsense! he is right, stop vandalising wikipedia! Anonymous dude420 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
What did I do[edit]
You removed my addition to the Bushmanser 25 millimeter auto cannon. Why? Coolguyman11 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Long prose descriptions, including personal analysis (WP:OR) is not appropriate for use in an infobox. Loafiewa (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh ok Coolguyman11 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Why did you remove my edit to death and state funeral of Richard Nixon?[edit]
Title KindSpinel (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
M2 Bradley[edit]
You seemingly removed by edit as Russia as operator of the article on M2 Bradley. I am not able to understand if you are pro Ukrainian. First I added Russia as non operator, then you edited it citing the reason that it is irrelevant. Then when I put Russia as operator you gave the reason that a capture does not make it operator. I saw Ukraine as operator of many Russian vehicles then why do you not remove Ukraine as operator of Russian vehicles(For eg T90,btr 80,ak 74 and even grenades).The article name is List of equipment of Armed Forces of Ukraine. This is no reason that operators mean equipment put in service. In this article you will see Ukraine as operator of many Russian vehicles even if they did not put the vehicle in services. I request you to kindly look in matter. Taking side of one side is not beneficial for Wikipedian readers. Wikipedia should be neutral in this aspect Hope you get what I meant to say Thanks SOHAMGHOSH123456 (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:OR. We cannot say that Russia, or any country, operates a specific vehicle or piece of equipment unless there is an RS that directly states that they in fact operate it, which battlefield capture does not necessarily imply. Loafiewa (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok I understand then what about your opinion of Ukraine as operator of T 90 in several Wikipedia articles?? SOHAMGHOSH123456 (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The T-90 article specifies that "a number of which have been put into service by the Armed Forces of Ukraine", which is also supported by the source used. Loafiewa (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
about your useless edits[edit]
you reverted my edits and other people's edits of the list of sniper rifles page for no Reason, you have said my edit was "non notable" this page is about the list of sniper rifles, not notable sniper rifles! so any sniper rifle should be on this list with no exeptions! Anonymous dude420 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Revert?[edit]
Wondering why this was reverted... what is wrong with using the flag template?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_rifle&diff=prev&oldid=1220224812
I truly am wondering about this.
Old💩404 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- See Template:Infobox weapon Loafiewa (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any ideas or explanations about why the weapon ingobox template doesnt want flag and specifies it yet other like Template:Infobox_military_person doesn't mention it.
- sorry this might seem like stupid questions but wp isn't that straight forward to find info and explanations about things.
- Old💩404 (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox person has deprecated flags too. This is explained at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which I did link to with my original revert. Loafiewa (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Indiscriminate reverts[edit]
hi. you undid my edits on the battle of Wuhan page on the basis of me editorializing my content, but i don't understand why you had to revert all my edits because of a few choice words i used. some of the content i put in there was super important, like the Jiujiang Massacre which is an established fact in outside sources like Mackinnon and Mitters works, but has no references on the battle of Wuhan page.
can you explain why you removed these edits? for something as major as a "mini-Nanjing Massacre," this content shouldn't be removed over a few words I used. I also see that you're a fan of the japanese military, and I don't want to make assumptions, but I want to know where you stand on this. thanks. Wahreit (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- also if the issue is over terminology, i'm willing to edit out the problematic language. i just don't understand why it was necessary to remove all the additional content Wahreit (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just a few words, if it were, then I would have altered one or two sentences, which would be the easier solution. The content added would need a fundamental rewrite in order to remove the issues of editorialising, unsourced OR in places, and not adhering to an WP:IMPARTIAL tone. I'm going to ignore your last comment, as I don't see how "asking where I stand" is constructive in any way, unless you're accusing me of being a denialist. Loafiewa (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- if thats the case then i can do a rewrite, but i still fail to see how this would qualify as editorializing when most of my writing was quoted almost verbatim from scholarly works on the subject. also, if there are any problems in the future, please specify any areas of improvement rather than indiscriminately reverting edits i took time out of my day to make. its not very fun reading and writing about japanese atrocities.
- as for the final comment, i genuinely didn't know if you were a denialist. removing an entire section about the jiujiang massacre, which is an established fact, seemed strange to me because there have been some problems with disruptive users on other second sino-japanese war pages. i didn't mean to offend you, it was purely for clarification. Wahreit (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't like reading or writing about this area of history, then you don't have to, it's a volunteer project. But if you are going to edit further, then comment on content, not the contributor. Loafiewa (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
May 6[edit]
Need your help for editing numbers of weapons/equipments used by Chinese 'peoples liberation Army ground force & airforce, if you have access to sources like military balance 2023 or 2024 than kindly update those pages, the pages are filled with random numbers without any citation. Dl ff (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)