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.
|
.277 FURY
Hi Loa, in .277 FURY, is "FURY" supposed to be an acronym? If it isn't, then the title and usage in the article shouldn't be in all caps. But I didn't want to move the article only to have someone point out that it is an acronym after all. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see no indication that it's an acronym, as if it were, I imagine one of the several publications that's talked about it would have explained what it actually stood for. Between the FURY, the MCX SPEAR, and probably a few others, writing their product names in all caps just seems to be something that SIG likes to do. Loafiewa (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Battle of monte cassino bear
Wth why did the addition of "1 bear" to the strenghr section get removed... the justification made sense why did you have ti remove it 49.245.30.41 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- The comment already in the article provides an explanation. There is a consensus not to include it. Loafiewa (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
My Edit to the maxim gun.
There is multiple pictures and combat footage of ukrainian territorial defense forces & LPR/DPR using the maxim gun under combat conditions, your edit of my revison for the maxim gun page is uncalled for
Sources: https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/03/some-really-old-weapons-are-making-a-comeback-in-ukraine/ https://preview.redd.it/8o8gumd1czo81.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e3b7ff3eafc0404a54abc07f3109b50c9be9f855 https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/an-installation-resembling-a-horse-drawn-cart-and-a-maxim-news-photo/1238478136 It is also stated that the maxim gun was adopted by the ukrainian army in 2016 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_M1910#Users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.45.33 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Nagant M1895
You told me that one of my recent contributions to Nagant M1895 has been undone because "it did not appear constructive". Can you explain why is it "not constructive" to add to the history of this pistol the fact that it was used by Jewish partisans fighting the Nazis and that it is referenced in a very famous song, still often performed at Holocaust memorials? In my humble view, it is completely constructive to add this information to the page.89.139.105.243 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- As a general rule, references to popular culture (such as songs) should not be included unless its appearance has been documented by at least one secondary source. MOS:POPCULT provides a more in-depth explanation. Loafiewa (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Jeff Cooper
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jeff Cooper. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.184.100 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jeff Cooper shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.184.100 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Removal of content
Once again noticed that you removed the Video. The reasoning given while removing it was the relevance of the video to the text. The relevance when I first added it was that the video showcased the tank as a whole and is best suited for the introduction section. The video demonstrated tank rotation, how the hydro-pneumatic suspension and the stability of the gun, it showcases armour, it showcases firing of the main gun and showcases auxillary gun. Demonstrated typical tank movement in areas which usually tank operates. And its removal was uncalled for. As a compromise, I even moved it to the section where the demonstration of suspension can be seen by viewers. You removed that also. I think you could have a look at the positives and add it back in the front section itself. Thank you.Rollingtanker (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Neither placements had any relevance. The introduction was about tanks during the world wars, and the development of anti-tank weapons, which had nothing to do with the video. Placing it in the 'engineering constraints' section has very little tangible relevance, as there is no actual explanation or context as to how the video shows the listed constraints. Loafiewa (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
IWI Galil ACE
I recently made a series of edits regarding this assault rifle, including aesthetic additions such as flags as well as some modifications to the companies in charge of the design and development of this AR, after that all my edits were reverted with certain warnings with which I disagree and requested review and permission to keep my edits. DanSlayer117- (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Whoops
Somehow I missed the shootings section of Daniel Defense. Must’ve not scrolled enough--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Cites
Re my edits/additions in the Model 36 revolver article, there are VERY few cites in original article; but i won't bother adding my 'variants detail' back, as you're one of those 'wiki-guardians' protecting your turf, and the wiki-'rules' are variable for you folks. 149.20.203.67 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:First Person Shooter (film)
Hello, Loafiewa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "First Person Shooter".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:.460 Rowland
Hello, Loafiewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:.460 Rowland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
armyrecognition.com and WP:RSP
here you removed use of armyrecognition.com with an edit summary of "Not a reliable source, see WP:RSP" - the website in question isn't mentioned at RSP however, although it has been discussed (fairly briefly) twice at WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_344#armyrecognition.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_349#Army_Recognition), where what discussions were made did not rate the source highly.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Sig MPX
My reference is based on direct knowledge, as a result of communication with the Hamilton County's Sheriff's department - where they stated, to me, in writing, that they use the Sig MPX platform.
It's personal correspondence, from HCSO to my business. How do you plan on referencing that? It's the most utterly reliable reference possible, but it's not a publicly published document. Darrylhadfield (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)