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)

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)

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

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 the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

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)

MAC-11

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.