User talk:Loafiewa/Archives/2022 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Unencyclopedic sections for StG 44
Since Denniss reverted several times as unreliable sources, then Szolnok95 restored some versions as s result of edit war.
Here are these problematic sources that was used:
However, Hitler had found out about the troop trials and demanded that all work on this new weapon be stopped immediately because of the new ammunition. However, production was allowed to continue, since the Gustloff company had been developing a machine carbine for normal rifle cartridges as a cover since July 1942.[1]
When it came to the ammunition supply, Hitler's fears came true in part: for the initially planned 200 million rounds per month, 86,000 additional workers were necessary, but they did not exist. The 400 million rounds per month planned from February 1944 onwards were completely utopian; from February 1945 the number was then reduced to a realistic 110 million.[2]
Please review these sources. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I did not contest the reliability of the sources, only the tone in which the added paragraphs were written. Loafiewa (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- This version is redesigned/rewritten, see this version. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Micro Uzi
Hi , the real rate of fire of Micro Uzi is 1,250 round per minute.Why did you remove my information I added? AdoptBoy79 (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021
|
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) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:The Guns of John Moses Browning
Hello, Loafiewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Guns of John Moses Browning, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I have declined your report at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV.
The problem appears to be a content dispute between the RPM of the gun being either 1,200 RPM or between 1,200 and 1,600 RPM. I don't know anything about firearms, and this is not what we'd normally call a reliable source, but from that discussion it would seem that the latter claim is a reasonable one to hold, edits stating this can have been made in good faith, and therefore reverting it without any other discussion or edit summary is disruptive. Indeed, I think it would be within the bounds of discretion for you to be blocked from the article for edit-warring - as the policy says, "Claiming 'My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is not a valid defense.". I would therefore be interested in your thoughts on this matter. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ritchie, I'd appreciate it if you looked at the history of that article (and also Uzi), for examples of the same behaviour. If a certain user wants to debate the ROF of a particular firearm, that's fine by me, and indeed it's possible that source X may give a different number to source Y. However, that's not what is being done here, the user in question persistently changes the number, without providing a source, and continuously creates new sockpuppet accounts to do so. Loafiewa (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I had a look at the history, going back to last October. What I can see is (presumably) the same person adding the "1,200-1600" claim (either as an IP or as an account) using a mobile interface, only to be repeatedly reverted by you. While repeatedly adding a claim without an accompanying source is disruptive, I also know that mobile editing has chronic communication issues (as seen at Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs). So although I think there was good reason to block the accounts as they were disruptive (and, indeed, I've blocked more than a few accounts like this myself), I think reverting them without making any attempt at communication or (apparent) assumption of good faith is problematic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- During the earlier edits, I did attempt to assume good faith, as you'll see on the accounts/IP addresses that were editing around October that they have talk pages created, through which I gave warnings for their behaviour, and I would also try and explain myself via edit summaries. However, I exhausted the possibility of good faith because it kept on happening - all the IPs are coming from Hanoi, and the user in question has made multiple sockpuppet accounts, and they've also sent messages on my talk page at least once before, ([1]) so it's not as though they just don't understand English either. It's not like this is a new user who just needs someone to explain the verifiability policy to them - they have been blocked for this behaviour multiple times, yet keep coming back without any attempt to change. Loafiewa (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I can see that they have tried to send a message, but I can't see where you replied to them? It shouldn't take long to say "consensus is that the RPM is 'x' because of [link to source] - if you have a better source, please go to [talk page] and make your case there". I know it's frustrating to have to deal with inexperienced users, but as long as Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", this situation will remain. By way of example, I've just done some cleanup on London Waterloo station after an IP added something that was factually correct but in the wrong place and formatted incorrectly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I came here to leave some comments about this, and I see that Ritchie333 has already touched on it. Creating socks and persistently making the same change isn't cool, but I'm also having difficulty with your approach. You have reverted that person perhaps twenty or thirty times on that one article, but you haven't used the talk page once. Furthermore, the article, and your reverts, are self-contradictory. At the moment, the text of the article says that the gun has a fire rate of 1,200 rpm; however, the infobox says 1,200 - 1,600 rpm. One of those has to be wrong, right? So, here is the sockmaster getting rid of the 1,600 figure from the infobox - which you reverted multiple times; and here is the sockmaster inserting the 1,600 figure into the body of the article - which you also reverted, multiple times. From what I can see, you have been edit warring to maintain the self-contradictory nature of the article; the other guy got blocked, but they weren't the only one in the wrong here. Have you actually read the cited source? I haven't, so I've no idea what it ought to say, but if you haven't read the source you shouldn't be reverting edit like that - it's not vandalism, and it might actually have been an improvement. Girth Summit (blether) 15:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Use of rollback to restore talk page messages of other users
Hi Loafiewa, just a quick note to say I've undone your removal of a block notice from the talk page of ENCYCLOBOYS - they are more than welcome to remove messages sent to them (with few exceptions which do not cover this - it's not a declined unblock request, it's not a deletion tag, it's not a shared IP notice). This also means that (in my opinion) it's probably not the greatest idea to have used rollback to undo the removal either, as it doesn't give the opportunity for you to explain why. stwalkerster (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, that's my mistake, I seemed to have misremembered that users were allowed to do that. Apologies. Loafiewa (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks! stwalkerster (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Your allegations of my "commentary, point of view, or own personal analysis to Wikipedia" to the page of IMI Galil.
I am the Weapons Specialist for the Colombian Military Industry (one of the five galil manufactures in the world and the only ones manufacturing AR and AR variants). So, unless you have information more accurate than mine (I am sure you don't) in respect of the Galil's variants we are locally manufacturing, please do not call my contributions to Wikipedia "commentary, point of view, or own personal analysis". Track back the IP Adreess and you will be suprised where I am writing from. Please feel free to visit www.indumil.gov.co for you to understand the sources. Personal note: keep the knowledge open to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.90.110 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Sigil 2
Hello, Loafiewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sigil 2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Just FYI
Not a big deal, but this revert in November restored vandalism that stuck in the article till Hazhk caught it yesterday. Obviously everyone mistakes, but if it were me I'd want to know, so just thought I'd bring it to your attention. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Pacific War Edit
Hi Loafiewa. I'm not sure what type of source to use for the edit you removed on the Pacific War. The article described Midway as the last major battle in the theater for almost two years, occurring in June 1942. However, the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal occurred in November of that same year, and is generally considered a large, strategically important clash. What type of source would be needed to make the change? Thanks! 216.15.50.27 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:RS has a comprehensive explanation, but usually any book, newspaper, academic journal, magazine, etc. is sufficient.
M-1 Abrams Tank edit
My edit on the M-1 Abrams tanks was an actual edit, not a test edit. It says on the Polish army equipment page that they are going to get the Abrams tanks this year. If that's the case, wouldn't that make them an operator instead of a potential operator? DBenner29 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2022 DBenner29 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)DBenner29
Okay but if the Polish Army do indeed get the Abrams tanks, don't say I didn't tell you so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBenner29 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC) DBenner29 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)DBenner29
A Barnstar For You
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For your quick and efficient work in reverting repeat attempts at vandalizing Desert Eagle. Etriusus (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
Etriusus (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022
|
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) 09:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Mosin–Nagant
Rifle magazine for 4 rounds. The fifth goes straight to the barrel. Карпенко Олексій (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thickening== On Tiger tank ==
A book from 2020, what is prove his points, why unreliable? If you do not believe in the book, can you please in the author of it? Because I cant link the video, search for it on YT: Transmission and Roadwheels: Tiger I Mythbusting with Bruce Newsome Part IISzolnok95 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
M16
I do not think your edit made the article clearer, as the sights paragraph now zooms in on the M16A2 iron sight line and does not provide information on the simpler preceding M16 iron sight lines. Though not belonging in this article, Eugene Stoner was quite satisfied with the AR-15, which Robert Fremont with Jim Sullivan scaled down from his AR-10 design. Stoner regarded the M16A2 iron sight line as overly complex for combat use. Stoner also did not like the addition of the forward assist and thickening the barrel on an intentional lightweight arm design.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you'd like to add something on the M16A1's sights, then that's fine, provided the article actually matches what the source says. Please see WP:SYNTH. Loafiewa (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Sigil 2
Hello, Loafiewa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sigil 2".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
CHECK YOUR SOURCES BEFORE MAKING SUCH ACCUSATIONS
Before you accuse me of vandalising. Check your sources, or even check the bloody previous edits before it was changed to 900 rounds per minute without any credible source. Then cross reference it to other existing sources and old sources. DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST, instead of reverting edits. Sick and tired of you people not knowing anything about firearms and reverting credible edits. I REPEAT I DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER EDITED FALSE INFORMATION HERE ON WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guns & Glory (talk • contribs) 17:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- You might want to take a look at WP:Verifiability and WP:HIJACK. You might know for yourself that something is true, but when you change information, it has to be cited to a reliable source. Loafiewa (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022
|
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) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Image you replaced
on the Heckler & Koch G3 article - and removed a second time was added to Solid Snake by different registered editor. Someone wanting to get their photo on Wikipedia? It has been added multiple times. I'm removing them (again). Cheers Adakiko (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- That image is on multiple Wikipedias: google search Adakiko (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe not. The google images are all from the Japanese Wikipedia. Adakiko (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for adding that "citation needed" annotation on the SOPMOD page just now. I'm not an editor/contributor here (just a gun guy), and I knew the annotation was needed but has zero clue how to do it myself 👍 2601:647:C802:F200:5878:BAF9:949B:C768 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Desert Eagle
The source is the movie, im watching it right now and the main actors fav gun is a Desert Eagle, judt watch the movie and youll see :) 217.27.175.111 (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022
|
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) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Caliber
The unit of measure is Caliber not inches. Caliber is a unit "based" on inches; it is not designated as a measurement of inches. Refer to the definition of caliber. Caliber is expressed in hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits. When referring to cartridges or bullets the units used are caliber. This would be expressed without any leading decimal. This is correct, it does not need consensus or collaboration this needs to be fixed on all Caliber pages.
Refer to the existing sources. Change the titles
Make this correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.0.104 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The existing sources across all the articles you've edited show a clear preference for displaying a decimal, and so your claim seems to fall under original research. And consensus is required, there are rules that dictate editing on Wikipedia, and they don't magically stop applying to you because you said so. Loafiewa (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
.277 FURY
Hi Loa, in .277 FURY, is "FURY" supposed to be an acronym? If it isn't, then the title and usage in the article shouldn't be in all caps. But I didn't want to move the article only to have someone point out that it is an acronym after all. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see no indication that it's an acronym, as if it were, I imagine one of the several publications that's talked about it would have explained what it actually stood for. Between the FURY, the MCX SPEAR, and probably a few others, writing their product names in all caps just seems to be something that SIG likes to do. Loafiewa (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Battle of monte cassino bear
Wth why did the addition of "1 bear" to the strenghr section get removed... the justification made sense why did you have ti remove it 49.245.30.41 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- The comment already in the article provides an explanation. There is a consensus not to include it. Loafiewa (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
My Edit to the maxim gun.
There is multiple pictures and combat footage of ukrainian territorial defense forces & LPR/DPR using the maxim gun under combat conditions, your edit of my revison for the maxim gun page is uncalled for
Sources: https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/03/some-really-old-weapons-are-making-a-comeback-in-ukraine/ https://preview.redd.it/8o8gumd1czo81.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e3b7ff3eafc0404a54abc07f3109b50c9be9f855 https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/an-installation-resembling-a-horse-drawn-cart-and-a-maxim-news-photo/1238478136 It is also stated that the maxim gun was adopted by the ukrainian army in 2016 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_M1910#Users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.45.33 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Nagant M1895
You told me that one of my recent contributions to Nagant M1895 has been undone because "it did not appear constructive". Can you explain why is it "not constructive" to add to the history of this pistol the fact that it was used by Jewish partisans fighting the Nazis and that it is referenced in a very famous song, still often performed at Holocaust memorials? In my humble view, it is completely constructive to add this information to the page.89.139.105.243 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- As a general rule, references to popular culture (such as songs) should not be included unless its appearance has been documented by at least one secondary source. MOS:POPCULT provides a more in-depth explanation. Loafiewa (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Jeff Cooper
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jeff Cooper. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.184.100 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jeff Cooper shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.184.100 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Removal of content
Once again noticed that you removed the Video. The reasoning given while removing it was the relevance of the video to the text. The relevance when I first added it was that the video showcased the tank as a whole and is best suited for the introduction section. The video demonstrated tank rotation, how the hydro-pneumatic suspension and the stability of the gun, it showcases armour, it showcases firing of the main gun and showcases auxillary gun. Demonstrated typical tank movement in areas which usually tank operates. And its removal was uncalled for. As a compromise, I even moved it to the section where the demonstration of suspension can be seen by viewers. You removed that also. I think you could have a look at the positives and add it back in the front section itself. Thank you.Rollingtanker (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Neither placements had any relevance. The introduction was about tanks during the world wars, and the development of anti-tank weapons, which had nothing to do with the video. Placing it in the 'engineering constraints' section has very little tangible relevance, as there is no actual explanation or context as to how the video shows the listed constraints. Loafiewa (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
|
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) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
IWI Galil ACE
I recently made a series of edits regarding this assault rifle, including aesthetic additions such as flags as well as some modifications to the companies in charge of the design and development of this AR, after that all my edits were reverted with certain warnings with which I disagree and requested review and permission to keep my edits. DanSlayer117- (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
|
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) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Whoops
Somehow I missed the shootings section of Daniel Defense. Must’ve not scrolled enough--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
|
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) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Cites
Re my edits/additions in the Model 36 revolver article, there are VERY few cites in original article; but i won't bother adding my 'variants detail' back, as you're one of those 'wiki-guardians' protecting your turf, and the wiki-'rules' are variable for you folks. 149.20.203.67 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:First Person Shooter (film)
Hello, Loafiewa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "First Person Shooter".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:.460 Rowland
Hello, Loafiewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:.460 Rowland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
armyrecognition.com and WP:RSP
here you removed use of armyrecognition.com with an edit summary of "Not a reliable source, see WP:RSP" - the website in question isn't mentioned at RSP however, although it has been discussed (fairly briefly) twice at WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_344#armyrecognition.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_349#Army_Recognition), where what discussions were made did not rate the source highly.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Sig MPX
My reference is based on direct knowledge, as a result of communication with the Hamilton County's Sheriff's department - where they stated, to me, in writing, that they use the Sig MPX platform.
It's personal correspondence, from HCSO to my business. How do you plan on referencing that? It's the most utterly reliable reference possible, but it's not a publicly published document. Darrylhadfield (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you can't use personal experience as a source, as it will have to be something that was published in some capacity, so that it can be verified. Loafiewa (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
|
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) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
Your recent editing history at IWI ACE shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
My edit about machine guns
Loafiewes...maybe you should consult your dictionary and clear your head on the difference between "coaxial" and "paraxial". Something that is coaxial is literally inside something else, think about coaxial cable, where the copper wire is enclosed in an insulating material, and that is then enclosed in a metal shielding braid, which is then enclosed in an outer insulating material. Anything that is merely sharing the same axis is "paraxial". Many armored vehicles have paraxial machine guns to assist in aiming and range determination, these guns are not located inside the main gun (coaxial) but will aim where the main gun is aimed (paraxial). As a retired veteran of the U.S. Army I feel qualified to speak about these things.
Wondering if you might share your qualifications to speak on this topic? 2603:900A:1402:F35F:B50A:BEFD:EFFE:8D93 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, and as my recent edit shows, they define this particular machine gun as a coaxial, even if you disagree. Loafiewa (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
My edit about the battle of monte cassino
Hi Loafiewa, the reason I edited the battle of monte cassino article in the first place was to not contradict the article: Military history of Newfoundland during World War II. In that article it says quote "During the campaign, the 166th participated in major actions such as the Battle of Monte Cassino, and numerous soldiers of the regiment received decorations for bravery. One such individual was Captain Gordon Campbell (Cam) Eaton, who was awarded the Military Cross in 1943 while serving as a forward observation officer". Hopefully you can get back to me soon. Salfanto (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've added a reference to the Monte Cassino article, although I removed the EL you added as it didn't make any mention of the battle (though it would most likely be appropriate to put it in the Military history of Newfoundland during World War II article). Hopefully this is an outcome we can both agree on. Loafiewa (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
you reverted my edit about Grot rifle
Hi, you reverted my edit about Polish Grot rifle you deleted my information that Grot has 3 lenghst of barrels and only 16 inch barrel is in wiki, while we have 10.5 and 14.5 inch barrels sold to Grot rifle , please change Grot Rifle artcile
10.5 and 14.5 barrels are being sold, we can buy them for Grot rifle,
https://fabrykabroni.pl/produkty/karabinki-sportowe/grot-s-10-fb-m1-a2/ 89.69.116.44 (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Unconnected Marketeers title.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Unconnected Marketeers title.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I replaced the screenshot with the cover. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
|
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) 08:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
|
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) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
You reverted my edit about the Panzerschreck
There is a source, I have an image that I put on the List of Russo-Ukrainian conflict military equipment article. Additionally here is the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpowell3404 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Reddit is not a reliable source. Loafiewa (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
|
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) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Vickers
Just a note that the added 1980 Guardian article doesn't contradict the NYT. Not sure what that editor was getting at but I think they just wanted to be racist and it didn't matter what the source actually said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Stryker M1126.
Hello, Its a pleasure. i just wanna add a fact about Kosovo Military that has buy it 20stryker with 30mm cannon on top, and i wanted to add has possibly future sale because still need the approvment of US Department of State in order to been delivered to Kosovo Security Forces. i also have evidence on this news. Ramiz767 (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
|
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) 10:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
unneeded reverts
Hell, please go into detail on why you reverted the KwK40 link for the Sherman page. Thank you. :WikiSherman: Gun Nut perk (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Remember
You're not in the wrong for reverting those changes, nor am I for putting them. But if it helps readers learn some vital info that could, for example: Help them research a project. They now know info not provided at the wave of a hand.
Thank you for trying to keep it organized and "accurate" with wiki formatting! Gun Nut perk (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Edit warrior
Hi Loafiewa, you reported this editor for edit warring today. They are now at it again at AR-15 style rifle. I'm not sure how best to add it to your report, so would you mind adding it for me? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I realise I'm a bit late now as someone else has already added it, but in future I think it's fine to just add a link to the page in the comments section (as is on the report now). Loafiewa (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Edit on ASMI
Hi, sorry about last time, I am new to editing on wiki. I am trying it again and this time I am adding source, and to the best of my as I have understood while reading the citations guidelines. I have personally visited DEFEXPO 2022 where I took video of ARDE promo video on ASMI and my friend uploaded it on youtube. I hope a promo from the developer itself is a good enough source. The 600 RPM is a wrong information and the correct data is 800 RPM. If anything is lacking, feel free to contact me. Delta1221 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- You will need to cite a reliable source that corroborates your claim. Note that you will not be able to cite the video your friend uploaded, as it would be a copyright violation. Loafiewa (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well then, there is nothing I can do then. All I can ask is where is the source that the gun has firing rate of 600 RPM? I can only ask you to take it down as it is an unverified and false information. Even the source cited in reference (Technology Focus, Vol 29,Issue no:5 (October 2021)) has it stated to be "more than 700 RPM". Who the heck had arrived at the value of 600 RPM. Better take it down as having no information is better than misinformation. Delta1221 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
|
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) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Loafiewa. Thank you for your work on List of arms dealers. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Might need to be moved to List of illegal arms dealers? Also it will not be an orphan if you create a see also section in the articles of the arms dealers and add a link to this list.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Bruxton (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and moved it to the latter title (I always thought 'arms dealer' had an illegal connotation, but seems Collins disagrees), and de-orphaned the article by adding it to arms trafficking. Loafiewa (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Bro I am not sockpuppet
See the proof https://twitter.com/war_noir/status/1513175645328756741?t=945hePxxS45yo3i43AClvA&s=19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douiuu (talk • contribs) 05:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Effective range question
Re: your revert here, obviously the revert is correct, as it was OR. My question is, what's the difference between effective range and the range a marksman can achieve? Our article on Effective range isn't very helpful. Thanks if you know, and don't worry if you don't. BilCat (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)