User talk:Loafiewa/Archives/2024 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Loafiewa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024
|
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) 18:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
army-technology.com?/Army Recognition
Hello! re:your edits on Type 99 tank I don't see Army-Technology or Army Recognition on the WP:RSP list per your edit summary. Is there a particular reason why you are removing it? Schierbecker (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Armyrecognition doesn't appear on the main list, but it has been the subject of discussion (viewable within the noticeboard archive section), which have shown a pretty strong consensus that it is unreliable and should not be used. I thought it was the same for army-technology, specifically I thought it was known to be a circular source, but after searching on both the RSP and MilHist archives, I've not been able to find any discussions of the source, so I'm not actually sure about that one. Loafiewa (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it looks like Army Recognition is maybe not the best. Should we start a discussion about Army-Technology? Schierbecker (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looking again at army-technology, its editorial policy looks solid enough, for which I'd assume they're generally reliable. I've not participated in RSP discussions before, but I can open one on this if you'd still like a third opinion. Loafiewa (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, go for it! Schierbecker (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
List of military disasters
I doubt you reviewed the References because i gave 2 sources from both sides confirming the disaster
1- Stahel, D. (2012). Kiev 1941 p.223. From Nazi side "Adolf Hitler"
2- Evans, R. (2017) The Third Reich in History and Memory p. 344. From Soviet side "General Tupikov" CoffeeRZ (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neither of those are specifically about the subject of military disasters. Loafiewa (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Kiev 1941 p.223. "the greatest battle in the history of the world". Adolf Hitler
- Evans, R. (2017) The Third Reich in History and Memory p. 334 General Tupikov, said bluntly: “This is the beginning, as you know, of catastrophe"—
- 334 not 344 CoffeeRZ (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- CoffeeRZ, you were told the same thing at my TP here. If you do not understand the inclusion criteria, then perhaps you should not be editing that article? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- i dont know why you want to control and monopolize the article, i bought 2 sources dealing with the subject as a military disaster and they are from opposite sides and from very reliable people i mean the leader of the winning side and a marshal from the losing side agreeing on the battle being a disaster
- 1- Stahel, D. (2012). Kiev 1941 p.223. From Nazi side "Adolf Hitler"
- 2- Evans, R. (2017) The Third Reich in History and Memory p. 334. From Soviet side "General Tupikov" CoffeeRZ (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- CoffeeRZ, you were told the same thing at my TP here. If you do not understand the inclusion criteria, then perhaps you should not be editing that article? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- CoffeeRZ, your sources may deal with the Battle of Kiev as a military disaster but they are not dealing with the subject of military disasters (in the plural). There is a very big difference, which it appears you do not understand. Compare your sources with those that are being cited in the article and which do satisfy the inclusion criteria. The criteria was the consensus of a discussion (here) involving multiple editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024
|
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) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
What did I do
You removed my addition to the Bushmanser 25 millimeter auto cannon. Why? Coolguyman11 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Long prose descriptions, including personal analysis (WP:OR) is not appropriate for use in an infobox. Loafiewa (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Why did you remove my edit to death and state funeral of Richard Nixon?
Title KindSpinel (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024
|
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) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
M2 Bradley
You seemingly removed by edit as Russia as operator of the article on M2 Bradley. I am not able to understand if you are pro Ukrainian. First I added Russia as non operator, then you edited it citing the reason that it is irrelevant. Then when I put Russia as operator you gave the reason that a capture does not make it operator. I saw Ukraine as operator of many Russian vehicles then why do you not remove Ukraine as operator of Russian vehicles(For eg T90,btr 80,ak 74 and even grenades).The article name is List of equipment of Armed Forces of Ukraine. This is no reason that operators mean equipment put in service. In this article you will see Ukraine as operator of many Russian vehicles even if they did not put the vehicle in services. I request you to kindly look in matter. Taking side of one side is not beneficial for Wikipedian readers. Wikipedia should be neutral in this aspect Hope you get what I meant to say Thanks SOHAMGHOSH123456 (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:OR. We cannot say that Russia, or any country, operates a specific vehicle or piece of equipment unless there is an RS that directly states that they in fact operate it, which battlefield capture does not necessarily imply. Loafiewa (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok I understand then what about your opinion of Ukraine as operator of T 90 in several Wikipedia articles?? SOHAMGHOSH123456 (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The T-90 article specifies that "a number of which have been put into service by the Armed Forces of Ukraine", which is also supported by the source used. Loafiewa (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
STOP
Stop. Don't edit "List of Assault Rifle" article again, your edits are already quite damaging and the potential to cause misinformation. We believe that the article is filled in according to the existing facts, talking about the validity of the sources listed whether they are independent or not, of course the sources listed are valid. If you still have doubts about this, we can advise you to read more of the existing sources, both in the article and those that have not been included in it. I think you have understood this appeal. 36.80.171.174 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The standard inclusion criteria is that an entry needs an independent article in order to be added to a list article, as outlined by WP:WTAF and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Loafiewa (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Then fix it but don't delete the existing data and subjects. In our opinion, it is enough to add some data that is valid and independent, there is no need to require the deletion of existing subjects just because they do not meet the criteria you are referring to. We hope you understand what we mean. 2001:448A:4008:23FA:E2DE:269E:A4BC:89F1 (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- The criteria I refer to is site policy. If you continue to disruptively edit against these core content policies, which all users are expected to follow (even if you personally don't like them), then I will have to request semi-protection. Loafiewa (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I have read the terms and conditions you stated. we conclude that you are only following the rules created by Wikipedia. However, we think this is not the right solution, because some data that does not have an article on Wikipedia does not mean it is invalid. we assume that simply adding what is missing such as independent data is enough for the reader. We realize and understand that some of the data contained in the article "list of assault rifles" does not yet have an article on Wikipedia and not everyone is willing to create one due to pure ignorance of the description of the subject data. However, with a heavy heart, we regret what you did to this article because what you deleted apparently already had an article on Wikipedia, whether it was a stand-alone article or an article within a related article. We ask that you return some and/or all of the data that you deleted in this article. 36.80.167.234 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- stop your nonsense! he is right, stop vandalising wikipedia! Anonymous dude420 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
about your useless edits
you reverted my edits and other people's edits of the list of sniper rifles page for no Reason, you have said my edit was "non notable" this page is about the list of sniper rifles, not notable sniper rifles! so any sniper rifle should be on this list with no exeptions! Anonymous dude420 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024
|
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) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Revert?
Wondering why this was reverted... what is wrong with using the flag template?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_rifle&diff=prev&oldid=1220224812
I truly am wondering about this.
Old💩404 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- See Template:Infobox weapon Loafiewa (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! i guess Canada would have been better than a flag/flagicon Old💩404 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Would be nice for you to add or point to the why when doing the revert, at least i would, for everyone's sake Old💩404 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any ideas or explanations about why the weapon ingobox template doesnt want flag and specifies it yet other like Template:Infobox_military_person doesn't mention it.
- sorry this might seem like stupid questions but wp isn't that straight forward to find info and explanations about things.
- Old💩404 (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox person has deprecated flags too. This is explained at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which I did link to with my original revert. Loafiewa (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
May 6
Need your help for editing numbers of weapons/equipments used by Chinese 'peoples liberation Army ground force & airforce, if you have access to sources like military balance 2023 or 2024 than kindly update those pages, the pages are filled with random numbers without any citation. Dl ff (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've got the 2024 edition, I'll try and get it done sometime this week. Loafiewa (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
May i know why my edit was reversed?
i added a sub category for the Al-Ghoul rifle as its a variant of the styer anti material rifle i listed sources and proved what i listed was correct so why did you revert it? is talking about said rifle not allowed on wikipedia or should i have made a seperate article for it? though that would be greatly unnecessary Waterlover3 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- It contained a copyright violation, and also used a deprecated source. Loafiewa (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- alright thanks whats the source exactly though? Waterlover3 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
STOP BEING IN AN EDIT WAR IN THE CZ SCORPION EVO 3 ARTICLE
you aint above the law you have reverted 3 edits by lemadoros which would lie into being in an edit war. you yourself actually have threatned to block me from editing over 2 undos yet you have 3 undos yet you dont recieve jack shit. hamas have verified their claim by posting 3 pictures of the CZ scorpion EVO 3 in their tunnels and due to their past of using whatever they capture, they do qualify as a legitimate user of said rifle Waterlover3 (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Books by Sarah C. Paine
A tag has been placed on Category:Books by Sarah C. Paine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 08:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Loafiewa! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Thanks for working so hard and for so long to protect and upkeep the English Wikipedia. User:Apollogetticax (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |  |
Apollogetticax (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024
|
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) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
disagree with reverts
hello. i've re answered your massage sent to me yesterday. i wonder if you have read that. i think i've fixed the problems you pointed out so i disagree with your action of reverts. you just said that i didn't make any changes in today's edit. but in fact, i've changed the expression in 3rd paragraph so it won't be contradictory any more. Please read my massage before. it is under the massage you sent to me yesterday. if you have further questions, we can discuss. Jaimnk (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- please look at discussion page of the article Jaimnk (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Indiscriminate reverts
hi. you undid my edits on the battle of Wuhan page on the basis of me editorializing my content, but i don't understand why you had to revert all my edits because of a few choice words i used. some of the content i put in there was super important, like the Jiujiang Massacre which is an established fact in outside sources like Mackinnon and Mitters works, but has no references on the battle of Wuhan page.
can you explain why you removed these edits? for something as major as a "mini-Nanjing Massacre," this content shouldn't be removed over a few words I used. I also see that you're a fan of the japanese military, and I don't want to make assumptions, but I want to know where you stand on this. thanks. Wahreit (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- also if the issue is over terminology, i'm willing to edit out the problematic language. i just don't understand why it was necessary to remove all the additional content Wahreit (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just a few words, if it were, then I would have altered one or two sentences, which would be the easier solution. The content added would need a fundamental rewrite in order to remove the issues of editorialising, unsourced OR in places, and not adhering to an WP:IMPARTIAL tone. I'm going to ignore your last comment, as I don't see how "asking where I stand" is constructive in any way, unless you're accusing me of being a denialist. Loafiewa (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- if thats the case then i can do a rewrite, but i still fail to see how this would qualify as editorializing when most of my writing was quoted almost verbatim from scholarly works on the subject. also, if there are any problems in the future, please specify any areas of improvement rather than indiscriminately reverting edits i took time out of my day to make. its not very fun reading and writing about japanese atrocities.
- as for the final comment, i genuinely didn't know if you were a denialist. removing an entire section about the jiujiang massacre, which is an established fact, seemed strange to me because there have been some problems with disruptive users on other second sino-japanese war pages. i didn't mean to offend you, it was purely for clarification. Wahreit (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't like reading or writing about this area of history, then you don't have to, it's a volunteer project. But if you are going to edit further, then comment on content, not the contributor. Loafiewa (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Loafiewa, reopening this discussion to apologize for the tone used in this discussion. Having gotten some more experience with wikipedia and its policies, i understand this was the wrong way to initiate a dialogue. Wahreit (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just realised I forgot to respond to this so sorry about that, but it's no problem. Loafiewa (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- of course, thanks for your understanding. have a great day. :) 🙏 Wahreit (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Use of Rollback at Vektor R4
Hi there. You did the right thing to revert the edit, but I don't think rollback was necessary, as it was a good faith edit of a user trying to add a source (which isn't reliable as you correctly pointed out). When you're rolling back other users' edits please remember to notify users with a message on their talk page, as they may not understand why their addition has been removed. BTW the said IP has gone and reinstated the edit again. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 09:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I checked the rules concerning use of rollback because of this comment, so thanks for making me aware. Loafiewa (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024
|
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) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)