User talk:Loafiewa

Archives (Index)

2021 1 2021 2 2022 1 2023 1 2024 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

MDR Rifle Edit

I see that you deleted a significant number of sources for the MDR redesign. Specifically three you tube videos of firearm companies (In Range TV is a firearm company that collaborated with Desert Tech), as well as a the Desert Tech official technical root cause and corrective action presentation that directly references the firearm company in Range TV collaborating with them on the redesign. You mentioned that review companies were not reliable sources, however in this case they are primary sources as the two companies worked together on technical redesign the deficiency of the product). Could you please re-evaluate your changes to the MDR redesign page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenIceman01 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for them having collaborated with Desert Tech? I couldn't find anything suggesting that on their website, their Youtube page, or elsewhere. Loafiewa (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, the mention was in the OEM, Desert Tech, root cause and corrective action technical presentation posted on youtube (It was the second link you deleted, that was between the original In Range technical evaluation and the In range design update technical evaluation).

The Youtube Technical Root Cause and Corrective Action that was released by the OEM was titled "InRangeTV Response and Resolution | Desert Tech" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ed01kq20dM&list=UL9ed01kq20dM

The attribution to In Range TV where the OEM indicated they worked with In Range on the design update is 15 seconds into the above video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenIceman01 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've now readded it, save for one sentence, as I felt that, if InRange worked with Desert Tech (thereby making them WP:PRIMARY), it would be self-serving to say that InRange then gave a favourable review. Thanks for the help. Loafiewa (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

M4 Sherman

To: M4 Sherman I am not a computer geek I do not understand what is written below by M4 Sherman, What is PITA? it seems Google took it from Wikipedia and Wikipedia took it from me, then deleted and banned me!

I WROTE THIS BEFORE YOU DELETED ME Assault pistol - Wikipedia [Search domain en.wikipedia.org] https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Assault_pistol Assault Pistol is a pistol that is designed to fire in semi-automatic or full-automatic or both. It uses standard pistol cartridges as opposed to mid or full power rife cartridges or specially designed carbine cartridges. Part of the assault pistol concept is a design to allow for unrestricted high capacity magazines similar to military style carbines. These are my words and you folks deleted my Assault Pistol page

But what I do know is firearms. I wrote the Assault Pistol as the page was blank with a forwarding link to assault weapons. I wrote it myself and did not take or copy from any other person or site. Because of the lack of clarity in Canada and some law makers in the US. Nearly ALL semi-auto rifles are banned in Canada and now they are going to ban all pistols of every kind. I was trying define the main design used in shootings other than that of a typical hand gun shooting. Semi-auto rifle barrels had before the ban had to be 18.5 inches to be rifles and then they all got restricted about 20+ years ago. Now they are just about all banned as they were all lumped in with hand guns 20+ years ago and no buddy said anything...........the BATF and the NRA need to back the new assault pistol category or suffer the consequences....wait and see. Do not for get I told you so. Ban me all you like and delete the truth all you like on Wiki I am really just doing this one thing and never use computers to much anymore, as I can hardly sit as a result of injuries, as they say at work.

I had two long hard looks at this (my first thought and actions were wrong) and I think the site reported in the copyvio report was an illegal copy from the article and therefore there is no copyvio by Szolnok95. Sites like tubquaferocheer.ga (and I found the same copyvio on two sites.google.com pages as well) are a complete PITA. Nthep (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Assault Pistol and over lapping categories like machine pistol, assault rifles, carbines, rifles

To Loafiewa: These Categories are defined differently in different countries. In the United States a Pistol is anything with a barrel less that 16 inches that overlaps with Carbine. Example: A semi-automatic AR styled rifle with a short barrel rifle(carbine less than 16 inches or rifle if longer). Then if with the exact same carbine or rifle has a overall length less than 26 inches when the stock is collapsed, telescope or folded and still can be fired, it then legally defined by the BATF as a pistol. BUT it is not a pistol, and it is not a machine pistol either, as that fires pistol rounds in full-auto or limited rounds in a bust mode, unless specifically modified or made apart from the original concept.

If in semi-auto only, and specifically design to a certain market it would be a civilian class of an assault carbine. Then if same aforementioned was chambered only standard pistol rounds it would be a assault pistol.

Machine pistols all are designed originally with very few exceptions for full-auto or bust mode with no single shot mode. A assault pistol is referred in the US and Canada as purpose built pistol by it's original intended dimensions of less than 26 inches that fires only pistol rounds and that utilizes high capacity magazines by design and that fires in full-auto and semi-auto, with the civilian category being semi-auto only and can utilize a stock or brace.

It is this semi-auto pistol/machine pistol sub category and the semi-auto assault carbine with a collapsed length of 26 inches or less and still can be fired, that cause most of the mass and school shootings. so property defining the two categories are important to law makers that don't know much about firearms, and want to ban everything including rifles instead of banning just those unless they just shoot rim-fire cartridges of coarse, as to leave the rifle and pistol shooters and plinkers alone.

The Beretta Cx4 is a assault pistol that some smarty put a longer barrel on to skirt laws. It is not a carbine or a machine pistol! The Cx4 was developed from a Beretta Px4 pistol. The Beretta carbine is a ARX 160.

Carbines, para military or military style are derived from the rifle concept. Assault pistols or machine pistols para military or military are derived from pistols.

The Dawson college Shooting was done by a assault pistol not a carbine as stated. In Canada at the time by law, pistols with detachable magazines could have 10 rounds max and semi-auto rifles, restricted or non-restricted with detachable magazines5 rounds max. This Cx4 had 10 round pistol magazine.

https://www.beretta.com/en-us/cx4-storm/

https://www.beretta.com/en-us/pistols/px4-family/

https://www.beretta.com/en-us/arx-100/

Assault pistol

Censored From Wikipedia below, the free encyclopedia that does not want accurate info it seems.

Assault Pistol is a pistol that is designed to fire in semi-automatic or full-automatic or both. It uses standard pistol cartridges as opposed to mid or full power rife cartridges or specially designed or loaded carbine cartridges. Part of the assault pistol concept is a design to allow for unrestricted high capacity magazines similar to military style carbines. Many can incorporate or are built with the use of a shoulder stock or brace for greater control and accuracy. An assault pistol is a form of purpose built semi-auto or full-auto sub-machine gun. They are intended for use as precision close quarters defense, attack or combat similar to the use of a combat shotgun.

Assault pistols should not be confused with carbines that do not typically use the standard lower powered pistol cartridges, if they are so chambered here is an Example: A .44 magnum carbine load vs standard .44 magnum pistol load. A carbine load creates too much chamber pressure for a pistol so an assault design pistol is not a carbine.

These assault pistol designs and carbines with barrels even shorter that the standard 14.5 inch M4 barrel used by the US army that are even more compact are the subject of much controversy as they are often use in mass and school shootings as opposed to firearms that meet the dimensional definition of a rifle either in the US or Canada.

Assault pistols do not fit the typical definition of a pistol either that is designed and intended to be used and held with one hand without a stock or brace and without high capacity magazines and have the original design the ability NOT to fire in full-automatic if so manufactured. The semi-automatic versions of assault pistols are often by legislation wrongly classed as pistols and many times as carbines they are neither, assault pistols are in a class of their own but are rarely considered to be in either Canada or the United States.

The Beretta Px4 is a pistol adding a shoulder stock and a high a capacity magazine makes a Beretta Cx4 a assault pistol not a carbine. A carbine is a short barrelled rifle that is chambered for rifle rounds or a rifle short or long barreled chambered for hot pistol rounds aka carbine loads. The Beretta Cx4 is designed for standard pistol rounds not hot rounds, therefor it is not a carbine but a semi-automatic assault pistol. The one used in the Dawson School shooting had a longer barrel to legal in Canada. Semi-Auto rifles and carbines were limited to 5 rounds magazine in Canada. The Dawson assault pistol had a 10 round restricted capacity pistol magazine.... so it is a assault pistol.

You'll need to provide reliable sources to support your claims, if the gun used in Dawson really was an assault pistol, then there should be sources that say so. Loafiewa (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

For Loafiewa You can call the sky purple all you want but the sky is still blue.

https://nfa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Gun-Control-Laws-in-Canada-1994.pdf If this helps

The gun used Beretta cx4 is just a Px4 with a higher capacity magazine capability with a stock attached. it takes pistol cartridges as the Px4 and is chambered the same. If you are not a gunsmith you may not understand the significance of what I wrote. One classic example is the .223 Remington vs the 5.56 x 45 NATO the cartridges are dimensional the same, but if you put the NATO cartridge in the .223 Remington you can suffer catastrophic failure as the cartridge pressures are higher, this caused by several reasons like head space and lead.. the space before the rifling is engaged. Still with me keep reading. The fact is I have the knowledge to write books on the stuff Canadian Gun laws make me ill. They like ever other government tool write lists instead of definitions to describe what the want. Why just ban ALL semi-auto every kind of firearm Rifle, carbine, pistol and leave people alone.... but the A/O can't, now they have banned classic old elephant and rhino guns because they have more than 10,000 joules even no ammo is around.

https://cssa-cila.org/sneaky-liberal-government-bans-firearms-by-muzzle-energy/            

It does not used carbine cartridges of that caliber. Your own web pages somewhere state the Beretta Cx4 was derived from a Px4. People call some firearms carbines when it is a pistol with a long barrel, when really it is a rife with a short barrel. If a pistol is redesign to have a large capacity magazine and a stock or brace it is still a pistol but now it is a assault pistol. The Americans call everything a carbine, with a barrel shorter that 16 inches. As per https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/taken-by-storm-beretta-px4-and-cx4/ Then Americans call a AR-15 with a 10.5 inch barrel pistol due the fact like Canada it is shorter than 26 inches when collapsed, folded or telescoped. And if you really think a AR-15 or a AR-10 that fires 5.56x45 or 7.62x51 is a pistol someone has really pulled the wool over your eyes. ALL true Carbines or shorter Barrel Carbines as aforementioned are rifles of a sort. A pistol cartridge is just that it used in a pistol. A semi-automatic version of the classic Thompson Machine Gun is a assault pistol. If it could take higher pressure loads it would be a carbine. The only purpose built carbine I think of right now is the .30 caliber carbine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Carbine

I am very tired and if you want to kill the definition and facts then do so and forever remain ignorant of the truth.

https://nfa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Gun-Control-Laws-in-Canada-1994.pdf

The fact is I have such skill when they would come when something strangely illegal like a full auto or some other cr*p they use come knocking. I have and would never ply my old trade to sc*m. Now I do just carpentry now and I can not do that anymore either as per being injured and sometimes I don't even have housing for me and the old farm dogs, so I really don't give a s**t. I own no firearms anymore. And if I wanted one I would just find any kind of deactivated one of any kind an make work, likely better than when it was first made, so sonny I no more than you will ever know. I was always fond of the old WWI bolt actions the only new one I like is the .277 fury cross rifle but with 16 inch barrel it will the next one banned by the despots of CANADA.... No I am Not Conservative or PPC nut.

Neither of those sources give an actual definition of what an assault pistol is. Loafiewa (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

TO: Loafiewa and M4 Sherman I really don't care what you two do any more, and I certainly do not care about Dawson College call it what ever you want, call it a lollipop that shoots pistol bullets.

I just trying to write a definition for Assault Pistol. (Personal attack removed) I was attacked by you lot first and was responding in-kind........maybe the time line was not correct. I was the one persecuted for writing a proper definition of assault pistol............do I have to join Webster dictionary or be some tool working at a some university somewhere? I absolutely just don't get it, if I was a leading scientist writing a white paper and certain undisputed facts on the Hydrogen Bomb and my name was Edward Teller, would you then accept that? I am sorry if I offend any person that did not have anything to do with the guy that stated: "go play in your sandbox" to me when tried to correct information on Dawson School Shooting... about carbine vs assault pistol. I am just old and grumpy as the best of times and now with a sore tooth for whom needs to go to his dentist, that I have not been since covid even with double vaccine AND I don't know how Wikipedia really works and what is required to post or correct, too laborious for me.

 The term carbine is a very general term and varies from country and differs over time it is not a concise term, it is like saying V8 motor. During and after the civil war when rifle barrels where 28+ inches or longer anything shorter was a carbine. Prior to 1960 in the US anything shorter than 18 inches barrel was a carbine. Now it is 16 inches. In Canada it 18.5 inches if a semi-auto

Are going to ask a mechanic to prove to you that there is different kinds of V8s names with different displacements and how even some have fuel injection vs carburetors?

With modern firearms since 1960 there is new kinds and categories of firearms and magazine capacities that are purpose built for certain jobs and uses. People call a long barrelled pistol with a stock the same as a short barrel rifle a carbine, they are obviously not the same.

If either has a large capacity magazine and can rapid fire as in full-auto or semi-auto.

In full-auto it is a machine gun OR it is a assault rifle if is it has a semi-automatic option with the full auto option and if operated with two hands by one person and if it uses full or mid power rifle cartridges.

If is has the same attributes but semi-automatic only it is coined as a para military rifle.

If it is as aforementioned and it is a pistol it then a machine pistol full auto and burst only, like a machine gun, but a pistol. Mac 10 Mac 11

If it fires in full-auto and in single shot it is assault pistol, usually with a stock attachment option.

If it is a pistol and fires semi-auto only and has a stock and a high capacity magazine it is a assault pistol as to purpose of use the as with a assault shotgun as purpose to use. The term Para-military pistol would fit but I have never heard it coined.

No military at large that know of uses assault pistols unless for security work. JTF2 in Canada may have in the past one would have check the inventory list.

I do not know how un-dumbfound you any further.

Good By

User Xiaoling 22

Hello Mr/Ms Loafiewa, i have a Complaint here that This User Xiaoling 22 is very Denial and Attack my page and Talk page as well. Xioling 22 keeps repeat that he use his claim 'Sources' while i check half of the Page in Equipment of Phillipine army is using Max Defence where it also a blog. Please can you Report him please. He is Really Denial Person. Calling me Using F*cker and more bad Words.MSQ 228 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I can explain, I never posted anything that is sourced from a blog. The source that I put was from an official government website but this guy insist it as a blog, this guy loves making stories, I stand with the rules and I have sources to back up my edits Xiaoling22 (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This guy is Really Trying To use His "Own Sources" while Im trying to follow what Fox 52 said. Reliable Sources. Im never making stories and even worst, He use the F-bomb on me. Very Denial person.MSQ 228 (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

MSQ 228 accused me of using FB pages as sources, I have never posted nor linked a source from a social media site as this guy said, even after I educated him with the correct source straight from a military government site (not a blog as this guy said over and over again) with proper signatures in the document Xiaoling22 (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, he also used F-bomb as well and I have evidence to prove it, I take full responsibility for being annoyed with him after constantly trying to educate him on the proper source Xiaoling22 (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

For the Record too, He's the one who use F-bomb to me first. While i have no choice. Educate me ?, he's the one WHO Should Educate first. Im Trying My best to Remove Some Non-Reference, Unreliable Sources and Blogs. He Attacks me First, he keeps Denial and Denial until im gone Crazy !!!. You know what, IM Done. I Followed What Fox 52 Should Do. You should Read more Wikipedia Rules Xiao.MSQ 228 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me? You kept saying I use blogs as sources, how many times do I have to say to you, the source that I put was from a legitimate government listing, keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again Xiaoling22 (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The only thing you are good at is repeating the same thing over and over again without bothering checking the new source I put to replace the old source edited from a different user, I have made valid points in this discussion while this guy keeps repeating nonsense and also, I suspect this guy to be a troll since he made this account yesterday just to cause discord on a peaceful page Xiaoling22 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Troll ?, You accuse me Troll ?.. excuese me ?. I Repeat it because It's not Reliable Sources !. Problem is I check Every Sources you put it is Blog & Un-Realible Sources. FYI, The M16A1, CAR-15, M1919 And more. Dude Get Over it. You Think You the Filipino Heroic to get medal ?. Im not person who loves to Keep repeating the Page. If User:FDW 777 Checks The Sources You take from MaxDefence. Don't blame me for it. Also The 2014-2015 Remington R4A4 Additional 10,965 Rifles didn't have Prove. What's Your Problem Xiao. Stop Being a Hero in wikipedia. All You do is Victim Blaming and Accuse on me. Now If you excuess me, You don't need to see me anymore. You just make Excuess to make sure you no.1 and About Discord thing ?. You Still a Denial Person.MSQ 228 (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not the one who edited the m16,car-15, etc, it was done by Pichanad who has been editing that page for years, keep accusing me of nonsense troll, I only made edits on the Sig M400, you are the one in denial that even one of the caretakers of that page Pichanad had to revert your nonsense earlier, keep up with your lies troll Xiaoling22 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Care to provide the source that I link from Max defense? If you cant provide it, this proves you are the one at fault, I am willing to man up at my mistakes at least but you are so ignorant to actually check up who actually put up with the sources Xiaoling22 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Its pointless arguing with a person like you since you changing the topic, Let's just agree to disagree Xiaoling22 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Pointless is where you never Learn to let it go. You keep Repeat and Repeat the same thing. I check again twice on Army Website and Still No sources said that. You are the Real Troll here kid 😑.MSQ 228 (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Lewis Gun

Not much to say here, just that i don't really know how to put sources and i need to put one for the mention of the 400-round experimental magazine. I know it's from a book called "The LEwis Gun" or something but i don't know if i am supposed to link to it in a specific fashion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic72 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You can read WP:CITE to find out how to cite information. I'd try looking it up and adding it myself, but I'd need further information on the book, such as the author or publisher. Loafiewa (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Apropos 101st Airborne

How does my edit constitute vandalism? The War on Terror is an epithet coined by the US Government; it is not in the slightest a factual reference to the niceties of the war waged by the US on the abstract entity referred to as "terror" in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.246.48 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling it "so-called" is an opinion, and Wikipedia articles are not supposed to present opinions as facts. Loafiewa (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Yoshimura (company)

Hello, Loafiewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yoshimura (company), 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) 15:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

M4 Carbine edit

The change I made in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine has a source in wikipedia itself, and the source is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_Army

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_Army page says they use the M4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovaniRol98 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That page does not have a reference, and the usage of other Wikipedia articles as a source falls under WP:CIRCULAR. Loafiewa (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

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) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy

Hello, Loafiewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy, 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) 07:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

M203/Philippines/Floro International production

Good day.

The reason why I edited the mention of Floro International Corporation's production of M203 grenade launchers to read as "formerly" is because that company no longer has a defense products division. That part of their business was shut down years ago. They now only provide document management products and services. One can see this from their current website, when compared to the archived web site that was formerly cited in the article. (See: https://www.florointl.com/)

However, since the current website no longer makes mention of any of Floro's former products or mentions the closing of its defense products division, I cannot ,in my understanding, directly cite it as reference with regard to this matter.

Girder2139 (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable to me, I'll restore your revision. Loafiewa (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Girder2139 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Hello; I am not sure if this is where/how to ask, but I made a recent edit to the Thomas Jefferson page that you reverted, and noted "Encyclopedia Style" standards. To be fair, the edit I made was generated by my high school students, and I am not surprised it was removed, but the students (and I) do genuinely feel that President Jefferson's status as a slaveholder (a more historically accurate word than 'slaveowner', we've since learned) should be top line information along with his status as a writer or lawyer. Could you clarify the issue or perhaps suggest an alternative way to indicate/add this information so we can think more about it as a group? Many thanks. Flowersfastly (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The primary issue is that the very first words of a Wikipedia biography should be the individual's name, not a title or occupation (e.g. George Patton's article opens with "George Patton", not "General George Patton", even though he's often referred to that way.) As for mentioning him owning slaves, this is an issue that has come up in discussions about the article before, but I personally think the lead does an adequate job of describing his relationship with slavery, by dedicating a full paragraph to it, and a link to a separate article specifically about it (Thomas Jefferson and Slavery). Hope this explained it well enough. Loafiewa (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowersfastly (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

novemeber 2021

it is from the source in the casualties paragraph itself. how do i show this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devastatedpillar (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Colt SMG

Why did you remove my information I added? ColtPony (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced. Loafiewa (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Smith & Wesson Model 500 - Undid revision 1049299877 by Gocontributor (talk) redirects to the main page, therefore the originally linked content is now dead

Tnis is a good link regarding the S&W 500 Underwood 700 gr round;

https://www.underwoodammo.com/500-s-w-magnum-700-grain-lead-wide-flat-nose-gas-check.html

It didn't take much to find it. Do you want to update it? or should I?

Thank you.

Gocontributor (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would advise against adding that per WP:ELNO - "one should generally avoid providing external links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." Loafiewa (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If so, how can this link on the Chevrolet Corvette entry be allowed? https://curlie.org/Recreation/Autos/Makes_and_Models/Chevrolet/Corvette/ Gocontributor (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Making of Modern Japan

Hello, Loafiewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Making of Modern Japan, 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) 07:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

About M1 carbine

There’re lot’s of Chinese book, photos that about X-force in India proof Chinese army are using M1 carbine. They proofed that Chinese army were using M1 carbine since 1942. Even in English Wikipedia, there is a list that showed Chinese army got M1 Carbine from United States:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_military_equipment_in_World_War_II

M1 Carbine .30 Carbine Milton E. Miles of SACO considered the light-weight M1 Carbine to be more suitable to the Chinese soldiers than the bigger Mauser rifles, therefore, most SACO units from 1943 on were issued with this semi-automatic weapon.[76] It was also used by the X Force in Burma.[74]

It seems due to I added a Chinese resources and the language barrier, you don’t know what reference I was added. It’s a book about the what Chinese army weapons were using in WWII, he did lot’s of research. I think I added the ISBN and pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WSWscience (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I have replied to your false claims of "personal analysis"

A scathing rebuttal to your false accusations has been posted at my talk page. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Note on A7 speedy tagging

Hi Loafiewa -- Thanks for helping out by patrolling! Just to let you know that you should not place the A7 tag (and a few others eg A1 & A3) immediately, as new editors often take a while and several edits to create even a microstub article. It's best to wait at least 10 or so minutes to give them a chance to complete their work. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Loafiewa (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

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) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

About the ak7468.15.78.122 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I had seen that you have removed my edits from the Ak74 page because I added that the butt stock was folding in the naval version. although I may have been wrong why did you remove my contributions by adding the links to the 5.45x45 and 7.62.39 pages If you have the chance add the links it is in the [caliber] section of the page. many other forms of vandalism done are not by me since this is a school computer and everyone in the schools contributions are put next to mine. I did not vandalize anything just add the links back for convenience please

pot calling th kettle black?

You wrote: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Agreeableness. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Loafiewa (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I must wonder what darkness befell you to say that to me. I'm 74 and my small changes were 100% well intended and I have only respect for Wikipedia ...it seems yours are not....I cannot say I respect you for your dark comments you deliberately sent to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.171.21.104 (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Note on Reverting

Hi Loafiewa, Thanks for helping out by patrolling Japan Air Self-Defense Force page. I noticed that you reverted some edit done by IP or new editor. Contents added by IP or new editor may be correct, but mostly they are not familiar to put proper inline citation per Wikipedia:Inline citation. Kindly please note that instead of removing those edits, please also consider to the following acts to fix the problems per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM:

• Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline cleanup tags as appropriate
• Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
• Adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself

Thank you. Cheers. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits to the XM25 text

Hi,

I am not experienced in using Wikipedia, so did not know why info I posted was deleted.

All my edits were based on personal experience, since I had the original concept and put it forward as described in the text I wrote.

I also analyzed the article published by the UNSW Law Journal and provided perspective to both that editorial board and to the U. S. Army at Picatinny.

So, maybe the source should be my personal experience?

The XM25 concept and its development spanned a much longer time frame than is generally acknowledged.

S0, I wonder if you might reinsert my text and cite a source? I don't need my name cited, but could do it without foul.

Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TacTec (talk • contribs) 13:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia's policy on original research doesn't permit using your personal experience as a source. But if you still have the name of the article (or any other sources that you used), then that would work fine. Loafiewa (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

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.

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)

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)