User talk:Loafiewa/Archives/2021 2

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Walter Fetterly


The article Walter Fetterly has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The Making of the Black Working Class
Hi Loafiewa, a while back you very kindly shared a link to a review to this book on my talk page. I was not able to view it immediately, because I didn't have a Google account. I have now set up a Google account, but I do not have access to the file, perhaps because it took me so long. Are you able to give me access, or share the document with me in a different way? Diolch yn fawr iawn. Crinoline (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reuploaded it here, just keep in mind that this one will expire in 30 days (but the GD doesn't, so I'm not sure why you couldn't access that one) https://ufile.io/3g7nmayc Loafiewa (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant, thanks so much! It's one I've not accessed elsewhere. Crinoline (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

regarding edits
plead, m1911 pistol uses 9mm period. That's just like an unequivecable (can't spell) fact. 45acp is jsut ridiculous and doesn't really except. Why are you so afraid of me? Is it because I'm different and weird? We can tail gate and drink some beer, or are you just afraid of me because I don't blindly follow your rules. Because I'm not a sheep like you! My grand daddy...fought for my right to make no sense. Because it is when the no sense and sense meets that it makes sensibile nonsense. And that is why the m1991 pistol uses 9mm. And now may I kindly invite you to step off my fiking porch? Oh, right, this isn't my talk space. Well, come over to my talk space and I'll invite to step off my fiking porch there. Fact is that 9mm is just fact. And you should be lucky that in my madness desceant I don't set up an Actionscript bot--because python is for pantsies--that uses a dynamic ip and really messes up this stupid site's pages. But fact is also that wkipedia is awfuL I was once a good editor! I donated that coffee cup, I edited pages well, and I wrote entire pages for game articles where needed. Then, ebcause, on portal 2 talk page, I proposed we tell when the game took place. Like it says in the game itself. They said, that wasnt necessary. but what the actual nw ord. Since when is it not important to mention a friking time frame? What ejaculate material nonsense is this? and that was how I got called for using an alt and for being bad editor. But it wasn't true. I was a goood editor and I did good job and you a hoooles falsefully branding me is what made me your monster. It is why I've trashed many pages. But the m19111 was not one of them that was just pure fan fact. It does use 9mm. Aside from that, one day I will return for the wrong actions of wikipedia on portal 2 talk page, history one. And remember...and remember...han shot first. wikipedia that. how the frik do I link my user name?!77.218.34.117 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC) there  ban me or not, I come nd go as I please and rethink how ban happy wikipedia should be in the future, ban the wrong people, specifically those who were actually innocent but just persistant on the talk pages!!! well,,,it creates a new type of vengeful editor ehehe

HA HA HA! THIS IS THE FUNNIEST COMMENT I'VE SEEN! XD But seriously, WHAT THE HECK? >:( A. you are wrong, deal with it. The 1911 uses .45 ACP. Want me to prove it, watch any US war film about the 1911 pistol. Or watch a forgotten weapons video. Or ask your grand daddy. B. You have listed no sources to your claim. C. You want to have a flame-war over this? Fine, let's do this. I'll take it from here Loafiewa. Blamazon (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Mz7 (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

AMT Hardballer revert
I disagree with your revert, and I can give you loads of sources about Agent 47's Hardballers, his Wikipedia page being one of them.

So why the revert?

--Wasmachineman NL (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MILPOP, references to popular culture sections should not be added unless they have been cited to a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. Loafiewa (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I still disagree, but whatever, must be protocol around here. --Wasmachineman NL (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Decino
Hello, Loafiewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Decino, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit revertion
Not long ago, you reverted my edit about the garand because you said I said "unlkely" without sources. My goal was to put an end to ancient notion of the garand-ping-tactic myth that has always been false. Have you heard of this myth before?(I'm not trying to sound arrogant, I am genuinely curious)Blamazon (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're talking about an edit you must've made several weeks (if not months) ago, but your most recent one didn't mention the ping at all, though it's already explained in detail in the article. Loafiewa (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

My edit was on may 10. At the end of my edit, I said that [garand-ping-tactic] was unlikely and probably never happened. You reverted it along with the rest of my edit. But you still haven't answered my question, have you heard of this garand-ping-tactic myth?Blamazon (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly see what it matters, considering it's already mentioned in the article, but yes, I have heard of it. Loafiewa (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This myth is based off of a really weird source. There was a book written by a US soldier(who's name I have forgotten) who used the M1 Garand and also knew a lot about guns in general. All these things come together to create a very credible source at first glance, but his claim about the garand-ping-tactic is false. And I can prove this using common sense.
 * The myth is that the sound of a garand's ping was loud enough that enemy soldiers would here it and attack(with bayonets) while soldiers were reloading. This is false for three practical reasons:
 * A. Firefights are so loud that the only person who could realistically hear the ping of a garand would be the person holding it.
 * B. The chances are slim that you will be close enough to hear and strike at someone you think is reloading by means of bayoneting, especially if that someone is not alone(and they are never alone). So you would still have to dodge the bullets of their allies to attack the one reloading.
 * C. The M1 Garand is much faster and easier to reload than a lot of other guns(of WWII and today), so this tactic is riskier for garands than for other guns.

And five tactical reasons:
 * A. The smallest possible infantry formation is the fire-team at a minimum of at least four soldiers. During a firefight, each soldier takes cover behind something that is the most protective against enemy fire, but also hardest for the enemy to get to. This means that running towards, or into the US defended position will put the axis soldier in a more unfavorable position than they were in. The only time this isn't true is if the ground is perfectly flat and there is no cover anywhere. If an axis soldier have the cover and the US soldiers don't, then leaving that cover puts them in an unfavorable position. If the US soldiers have the cover, then the axis soldier is in an unfavorable position because instead of being far away from the americans, he is now next to several americans that can stab and shoot him immediately.
 * B. Soldiers tend to stick together rather than disperse. So it is rare that you will find a soldier that is alone. If he is not alone, then you have to stab a soldier AND deal with his friend.
 * C. During battles, soldiers will offset their fire so that they are not all reloading at the same time. This means that most of the time, an axis soldier has to dodge three soldiers' bullets if he wants kill the reloader.
 * D. In war, soldiers shoot at enemy soldiers the moment they seem them(wouldn't you?). They do this because in war, you want to be one step ahead of the enemy. Which means firefights often are over long distances. We can prove this by analyzing what weapons they were carrying. A US infantry squad carried one SMG, one LMG, and the rest of the soldiers had rifles. We know that rifles are built for range and accuracy, while SMGs are built for firing less powerful rounds at controllable fire rates. So if there were more SMGs in squads during WWII, then we could deduct that they did more close-quarters combat. All of this means that an axis soldier has to hear the ping over a long distance, and then run that distance to get to the reloader. And judging by the reload rates of the garand, it is likely that the US soldier would finish reloading before the enemy arrived.
 * E. Doing a charge means you have to give up your position. This is bad if you were concealed or behind good cover.

The problem with this issue is that it is based on a very believable incorrect source. And these tactics that I listed are hard to cite because the manuals tell different stories than the history.Blamazon (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Hidden Star in Four Seasons.png
Thanks for uploading File:Hidden Star in Four Seasons.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Hisoutensoku.png
Thanks for uploading File:Hisoutensoku.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Fairy Wars.png
Thanks for uploading File:Fairy Wars.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Double Spoiler.png
Thanks for uploading File:Double Spoiler.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Double Dealing Character.png
Thanks for uploading File:Double Dealing Character.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Shoot the Bullet.png
Thanks for uploading File:Shoot the Bullet.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Legacy of Lunatic Kingdom.png
Thanks for uploading File:Legacy of Lunatic Kingdom.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Impossible Spell Card.png
Thanks for uploading File:Impossible Spell Card.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous edit to 'Hi-Point C-9' on January 23, 2021
In January this year, you made an erroneous edit to the page for the Hi-Point C9.

Your edit alleged that the improved model, the YC9, was released in 2019. However, at the time of your edit, and even to this day, the YC9 has not been released. Please be more careful in the future. Oktayey (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My recent edit
Dear Loafiewa, I believe you made a mistake of reverting my edit, however I believe that you did it in good faith. I know that in wikipedia when someone edits, they must present evidence. I forgot to include mine, so I will include it here. Here is my evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_used_by_mujahideen_during_Soviet–Afghan_War and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_equipment_used_by_mujahideen_during_Soviet–Afghan_War&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_equipment_used_by_mujahideen_during_Soviet–Afghan_War&diff=prev&oldid=989934649 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_equipment_used_by_mujahideen_during_Soviet–Afghan_War&type=revision&diff=989934771&oldid=989934649 and a non wikipedia site just in case: http://edocs.nps.edu/AR/org/CSRC/csrc_jan_02.pdf and this is all my evidence. Please send me a message if you don't agree with my evidence. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Yours Faithfully 77.97.114.42 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're right, the source it's being cited to on M16 doesn't actually mention Mujahideen usage, my mistake. Loafiewa (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Revertion on talk pages.
You just reverted two of my edits on the sherman talk page because it was disruptive. But one of my edits was a response to a question on the talk page. I don't see why that needs to be reverted. And the other revertion was a question that I had that I wanted to learn more about. Why does that need to be reverted? Also how did you revert those so fast? It was like a second after I finished them.Blamazon (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted it because the talk pages are for discussions regarding how better to improve an article, and not for general discussion of the article's subject, as I have pointed out multiple times. If you want to ask general questions, you can try the WP:RD, or looking elsewhere on the Internet. Loafiewa (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A huge number of talk page posts are questions not related to improving the page itself. In fact one of my edits was as an answer to one of these questions. So why are those questions still there? Shouldn't they also be removed?Blamazon (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of those questions were asked years ago, on FG 42, you replied to someone who made their post all the way back in 2008. Loafiewa (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So?Blamazon (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You reverted three edits I made, one was a month ago so what does time have to with anything? Those discussions were not closed.Blamazon (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It falls under the same policy. WP:NOTAFORUM.


 * If that is the policy then why not delete the whole section instead of just my edits?Blamazon (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because most of them were previously dormant. Again, a lot of these were questions that had been posted years ago. Loafiewa (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense at all. Age doesn't qualify the validity of any statement no matter how true or false it is. And discussions on talk pages can be locked to tell users that the conversation is over. So I don't edit those. The ones I edited were open.Blamazon (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Touhou Spell Bubble characters.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Touhou Spell Bubble characters.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Touhou Spell Bubble characters.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Touhou Spell Bubble characters.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Your claims on Ufred are unsubstantiated. This university withholds revenues and is not a bottom line enterprise. Your use of adjectives also requires commas. Please refrain from posting false, grammatically incorrect writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbucktu21 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Touhou Spell Bubble characters.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Touhou Spell Bubble characters.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) 18:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Imperial Japanese Army during the Pacific War
The article Imperial Japanese Army during the Pacific War you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Imperial Japanese Army during the Pacific War for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

TAVOR Turkey
Hello Loafiewa, I'm a bit of an amateur and I don't know how to do it according to wiki standdarts i have few proof that TAR-21 is in TAF SF service also MKEK produce Grenade launchers for this rifle.
 * Unfortunately, none of the sources you have linked qualify as reliable. To keep it simple, self-published sources, which mostly consist of personal blogs or social media sites like Reddit or Twitter are considered unreliable, unless the post is being made by a reputable source (e.g. a newspaper). Second, when it comes to firearm users, it is required that the source actually says that the country/unit uses it, rather than just a picture of them with it. Hope this helps. Loafiewa (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

L1A1
Hello, you might otherwise know me as "Dan27032". I would like to start off by saying I do not intend on evading my block and doing any more "disruptive editing/vandalism", just that as part of it I am also unable to reach out to you regarding this, and previously I have not known how to. But now that I can I just wanna ask you first off, why does this matter so much to you? Why are you so protective over false information? I looked through the references and it says nothing about UKSF still using the L1A1 SLR, there WAS a source about the L1A1 HMG (our designation for the M2 Browning Machine Gun), a source I cited but NOTHING about the SLR. So I ask again, why do you care so damn much about me correcting it? I cited my sources in the end and you lot still had an issue with it. I'm fully aware this isn't going to help my case regarding the block and you may well after reading the first sentence decide to get me in even more trouble over this nonsense but for real... the UKSF don't use them and I don't see why I deserved any of that for correcting such misinformation.
 * The sentence had multiple references, the first part of it was verified by the Small Arms Survey reference, and the other, by the Bishop, and the Cashner which I later added. The SAS source refers to it as a "7.62mm rifle", so how you concluded from that it's talking about a 12.7mm machine gun is beyond me.Loafiewa (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

L1A1
The sources you added were either unobtainable or dating back as early as the late 90s... exactly how does that suggest they're in active service? I find it ironic that I'm being punished for making edits with illegitimate sources or whatever and these are what you're using to back up the claims of what I was trying to correct. As for the L1A1 HMG I literally posted an article from EliteUKForces about it and how it is our designation from the M2 Browning, I don't see anything about a 7.62mm rifle on it...
 * The Kashner source is from 2013. Just because you don't personally have access to a particular source, that doesn't mean it's unobtainable.

Concern regarding Draft:Matthew Moss (author)
Hello, Loafiewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Matthew Moss (author), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Notable people
Can u add Qazi Atta ur rehamn to list of Notable people as he was a very imp personality Anonymus123444 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not unless you provide a reliable source that shows why they are notable. Loafiewa (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

High Resolves
Hi, I'm new to all this and want to update some of the content on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Resolves so that it is more up-to-date and accurate. As I work for the organisation I want to know how to do this in a way that is ethical and that citations are not promotional material.
 * You can read WP:NPOV to find out Wikipedia's policy on writing, but in short, the important thing is to avoid using puffery and language that sounds like you are soapboxing. Loafiewa (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:First Person Shooter.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:First Person Shooter.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Loafiewa. After reviewing your request, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ALoafiewa enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Orphaned non-free image File:First Person Shooter.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:First Person Shooter.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) 17:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Turning points during World War II for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Turning points during World War II is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Turning points during World War II 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. Pipsally (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Matthew Moss (author)


Hello, Loafiewa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Matthew Moss".

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! 20:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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
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. 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
 * 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.

Nomination of AK-50 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AK-50 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at 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

Thank you
Thanks for having translated my article about The Visual Novel Database, I appreciate it. --31NOVA (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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. -- A Rose Wolf  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

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.

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. 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&#32;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)

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)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 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) 12:52, 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&#32;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&#32;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)

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
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 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)