User talk:Loafiewa
| This is Loafiewa's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
L1A1
That's still 8 years... furthermore virtually anyone reading about the L1A1 won't "have access to it personally" making it pretty much unobtainable. If they wanted to they could but why bother when you can add information supporting your claims which you are incredibly militant about preserving for free? If UKSF actively use the L1A1 then either come up with a better source or recite a sentence from the Kashner source supporting the claim that they do. The Gulf War was 30 years from now so that isn't good enough. I continue to find it ironic that you're so defensive over a claim built on quicksand that you actually got me banned for attempting to edit it.
- The reason you were blocked was because you were WP:SOCKING, which is against the rules. It's as simple as that. Loafiewa (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
L1A1
You were gonna block me eventually anyway. Again the Kashner source isn't completely reliable and I don't understand why you're so protective over the claim of our special forces continually using L1A1s being removed and/or changed. That is why I ask that you recite something from it supporting the alleged fact they do or I'll just assume there's some weird kind of bias.
Furthermore IF our special forces still use them it most definitely isn't on any sizable scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan27032 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is completely reliable, books by Osprey have been used in several FAs, to quote WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." As for the quote from the book, page 34 reads:
"The L1A1 served British and Commonwealth armies in the Malayan Emergency (1948–60) [...] and some limited use in the First Gulf War in 1991." And seeing as you mentioned it not being on a "sizable scale", I'll just add that how many people of a particular country/unit has no bearing, there's no rule saying it can only be included if it's standard issue. Loafiewa (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
L1A1
Right but at the end of the day UKSF typically use AR pattern rifles. I will concede that it was used into the 90s and maybe, JUST maybe the early 2000s but there isn't any evidence to support the fact it's currently in use because, it isn't.
Removing content
Stop removing content Its valid source don’t remove again😡 Worldedits100900 (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
You've got mail - Battle of Mogadishu
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.ReadyBored (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not really sure how this Wiki stuff works and the directions are very confusing but please read my email
ReadyBored (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
TAC-50 Maximum range
As from the article on the TAC-50
"World record An unnamed Canadian Joint Task Force 2 sniper made the longest recorded sniper kill in history with this weapon in Iraq. He made the kill within the 30-day period leading up to 22 June 2017. The Canadian sniper killed an ISIS fighter from 3,540 meters (3,870 yd; 2.20 mi).[4] The previous record of 2,475 meters (2,707 yd; 1.538 mi) was set by British sniper Craig Harrison in 2009 using a .338 Lapua Magnum chambered L115A3 Long Range Rifle sniper rifle.[4]
Three of the top five longest recorded sniper kills were made with the McMillan TAC-50 rifle, all by Canadian soldiers.
3540 m is the confirmed maximum range. Please do not undo edits so recklessly. The source is provided on the page already.
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 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) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at AK-50. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. User:45.44.227.168 (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2021
Nomination of AK-50 for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AK-50 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Embodiment of Scarlet Devil gameplay.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Embodiment of Scarlet Devil gameplay.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. --B-bot (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
History of AK 102
Loafiewa ak 102 was first purchased and used by Indonesia in October 2000.
A total of 3000 rifles of AK-101 and 1000 rifles of AK-102 were decided to be purchased under a contract on 12th October of 2000.
https://conflictfreelance.rs/guns-of-nusantara-the-ak-101-and-102-in-brimob-service/
Bnfv6856786 (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Service date of AK 102
Loafiewa why are you changing the service date of ak 102
Source info for m99 rifle
Sir see this https://bangladeshdefence.blogspot.com/2010/11/weapons-used-by-bangladesh-army.html?m=1
- That's another self published source. Loafiewa (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Loafiewa just is a self published source you cannot remove this information Dourow575 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Loafiewa why are you changing the service date of AK 102
In this website it is already mention that ak 102 was bought by Indonesia in 12 October 2000
Check this website
https://conflictfreelance.rs/guns-of-nusantara-the-ak-101-and-102-in-brimob-service/
This source is accurate
Loafiewa please don't start edit war or ban account of innocent people who try to contribute wikipedia by providing proper information.
Loafiewa why are you not satisfied with my thoughts and still protecting incorrect service date of AK 102 Dourow575 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for having translated my article about The Visual Novel Database, I appreciate it. --31NOVA (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI
Let me preface the following comment by saying this is not a gripe nor a complaint, just an observation. It is intended as such. Just an FYI on the recent reversion you made on Nambu pistol. WP:MILPOP is part of the essay WP:MILCG which is not a guideline or a policy of Wikipedia. It clearly says "This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" at the top of the essay and including it as a reason for reverting gives the impression to the editor this is a policy which is not the case. It's just something to consider when writing an edit summary. Also be careful not to bite a new editor too hard. Most have not learned policy yet and so pointing out exactly what policy they ran afoul of would be beneficial to them going forward. Thank you for all your contributions and happy editing. --ARoseWolf 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Mosin Nagant article
Loafiewa,
I thought I cited the source correctly...did I make a mistake? Any help in making my edit acceptable would be much appreciated.
GavinDruid (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- The formatting was perfectly fine, but the source itself was a self published source, which should be avoided in most cases. As a general rule, self-published sources (e.g. blogs and social media posts) shouldn't be used for anything other than self-description, provided the SPS is about the article subject. In other instances, reliable sources, such as books, academic journals, or newspapers, are strongly preferred. Loafiewa (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Responding re: article hijack
Hello! My only edits to the page in question were to add brackets to create internal links to native wikipedia pages. I wasn't aware that would be an issue as I was simply trying to contribute and improve the page. Am I totally crazy and not understanding what is appropriate on a talk page? Forgive me for any trouble! I am new around here and trying to contribute to the wonderful community. Please feel free to help me understand any protocol I may have missed. Warm regards Anchoredadvantage (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the original edit that added links, but whoever had put that article there in the first place had done an article hijack, in other words, they had put an article in the wrong place. Talk pages are meant to be used for discussion about how to improve that specific article, and new articles should instead be published through the articles for creation process. If you've got further questions, you can check this page for more information on how to contribute, or you can ask questions at The Teahouse. Loafiewa (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 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) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Benelli M4 and SiG 516
Dude i have Picture proofs how to show you in order to put Egypt as user for both guns?? Abdelrahman El-Ghawas (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- As per WP:GUN-USER, a source that consists entirely of an image is considered insufficient. You'll need to provide a source that explicitly says it's being used by the particular unit/country. Loafiewa (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok how about that one https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/04/20/potd-egyptian-navy-sof-with-sig-516s/
Abdelrahman El-Ghawas (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- That would work fine. Loafiewa (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio
Hi, I saw {{Copyvio-revdel}} To me it appears a militaria seller has copied text from Wikipedia. I recently moved a section from the barrel paragraph and just added some information.
The text section; The method of barrel change made the MG42 unsuitable for secondary or co-axial armament on WW2 era German tanks with one exception, the Jagdpanzer IV. Early versions of the Jagdpanzer IV carried two standard (no modification made) MG42's on both sides of the gun mantlet/glacis, firing through a ball slot which was protected by an armored cover (with the MG42 retracted) when not in use. Later version Jagdpanzer IV's carried only one MG42 on the left side. was added in the Wikipedia MG 42 article on 25 February 2010 by user Richard Blacksmith.
See in the history: curprev 15:03, 25 February 2010 Richard Blacksmith talk contribs 20,498 bytes +460 →Service history: Added info on use in the Jagdpanzer IV undothank
Hope that helped.--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
SIG SG 550
Hello, in regards to your reversion, no information requiring a source was added in the edit that you reverted. The edit was a change to a formatting error with the table of users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550#Users) please compare the different user tables. Best regards. 181.167.62.205 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like you're right, I've now reverted myself. Apologies for the mistake. Loafiewa (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I found a Vandalism Occured Yet it was cleared In SIG550’s Facts.
Hello Loafiewa, The User Called 72.255.159.184 Vandalised The SIG550 yet it said (Fixed Typo) it didn’t fix typo so he used the incorrect information called (Armalite Rifle), This user is caught by Vandalising for disruptive edits. It is warned for a reason as it did not cite the sources. Thank you. From: User 101.127.139.158
MG 42 cyclic rate
I do not doubt a cyclic rate of 1,500 rpm for the MG 42 as the original source German Army (Heer) (3 May 1944). H. Dv. 181/7 Untersuchung und Instandsetzung des Infanteriegerätes, Teil 7: Waffentechnisches Handbuch für MG 42 [Army Manual 181/7 Inspection and Maintenance of Infantry Equipment, Part 7: Weapon-technical Handbook for the MG 42] (in German) actually specifies 25 rounds per second as the cyclic rate. This equals 1,500 rounds per minute. That 1,500 rpm cyclic rate for the MG 42 is often mentioned in other less original German sources. For example Google translate will translate a 2014 German newspaper article https://www.saechsische.de/plus/die-bestie-von-omaha-beach-2854734.html about the memories of than old people who once worked at Großfuß to English and mentions the 25 rps/1,500 rpm cyclic rate. Of course the combination of differing bolt weights, springs and ammunition used will vary the actual cyclic rate.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it either, it's just that the person who's been persistently changing it has not been able to provide a source, and thus is engaging in subtle vandalism. Loafiewa (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 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) 14:00, 22 September 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