This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

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)

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, 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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

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)

Oh ok Coolguyman11 ( talk) 18:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Title KindSpinel ( talk) 15:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SDNONE Loafiewa ( talk) 16:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

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. 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)

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

Wondering why this was reverted... what is wrong with using the flag template?

https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)