Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf23:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page T-80, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2S5 Giatsint-S, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
See WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, you are using unreliable sources such as tweets and Russian state media to report on Ukrainian losses, while removing referenced content about destroyed Russian equipment. TylerBurden (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly rely on photographic evidence as a source, i can't just use an IMGUR link as a source on wikipedia so i just link the tweets and articles containing the photos and videos as a source. The point of my sources isn't the tweets or contents of the article but the photographic evidence within them, which can't be said about those fucking SYPAQ claims i keep deleting D1d2d3d29 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this illustrates part of the problem we're having. You personal standard of belief relying only on photographic evidence isn't really relevant to editing on Wikipedia as it isn't Wikipedia's standard. See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, neither of which requires photographic evidence as the only accepted standard. We write our content based upon what is in reliable sources, and that's it. From an academic point of view, relying only on photographic evidence isn't actually very good either. Photos need to be interpreted, for example, and can easily be misused. Lots of fake stories and false information spread using photos as "evidence," such as supposed damage during BLM protests that was attributed to the rioters, but often were either doctored or images of something else entirely. A city shown on fire can turn out to be an entirely different city, or a screencap from a fictional television show. Take your issue with SYPAQ; any interpretation of a photo would require an expert being able to tell that a destroyed aircraft even is the type of aircraft in question, and it could easily be a different destroyed aircraft at a different location and date. Such a photo also wouldn't be revealing as to how the aircraft was destroyed, whether by kamikaze drone made of cardboard, cruise missile, local sabotage, fueling accident, etc. An expert (or team of them) might be able to make such determination, but they aren't likely to do so using pictures posted to IMGUR. Unless you are lucky enough to have an image with a highly visible landmark in the background, someone holding up a newspaper with the date visible, and a before and after shot of the aircraft in question, one with the drone visibly approaching and another immediately after the detonation, relying on just photographic evidence isn't likely to tell you the whole story. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing for using just photographic evidence, but the edits i posted are reliant upon a large amount of photographic evidence that can be easily geolocated and would have been very hard to fake. D1d2d3d29 (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE is also worth a read, even if something is true, it may not be suitable to be included on Wikipedia due to not having the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Even poor sources sometimes report on factual information, but for inclusion on a Wikipedia article it needs to come from established reliable references. That is while I see your point, Wikipedia is more about coverage than pure facts, and as you get more experienced with editing you find out why. Leaving it up purely to Wikipedia editors to include things because they deem it fact simply wouldn't work. TylerBurden (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
September 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Combat Vehicle 90. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
What other articles are you talking about the CV-90 and AMX-10RC are literally the only places i am being reverted in and their source appears to be you (?) D1d2d3d29 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you removed sourced content on the same article based on your own WP:OR and a "Russian commander". It seems you still do not understand how content on Wikipedia is added. TylerBurden (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably this edit, and you should know by know that "I've heard claims" (no matter who from) and "those claims sound credible to me" are not acceptable grounds for edits on Wikipedia, just as your own personal interpretation of photos is not acceptable. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't common sense be an acceptable reason to dismiss an edit? If someone wrote in that the sky is purple or that salt water cures blindness i don't think anyone would complain if i removed it on the spot without fanfare
The claim that UA CV-90 crews suffered 0 losses, not even a single injury, despite the vehicles having been deployed to the frontline for more than a month in a peer to peer war contradicts common sense, it's a highly incredible claim, and i like to say "incredible claims require incredible evidence", i think it would be reasonable not to state or speculate in wikipedia on wheter any CV-90 crews died or not until after the war since it's going to be secret information anyway D1d2d3d29 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All my edits did is remove speculation/statements that no CV-90 crews were harmed given that there is no hard evidence for it, and since stating that there are 0 casualties among CV-90 crews is a very baller claim i believe very hard evidence should be required for that statement to be believable, and as i've pointed out there are statements contradicting it D1d2d3d29 (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been told what the relevant Wikipedia policies are. You have been told to STOP using your own personal beliefs, things you've overheard, and your own personal interpretation of photographic or video evidence. I will add to this list that you are not to dismiss cited sources based on your own intuition or "common sense." Read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources. What we do here on Wikipedia is report what is stated in cited sources, NOT our own personal beliefs on the matter. If you continue this style editing, as you did again in this edit and your accompanying edit summary, you will be referred to Wikipedia administrators to review your behavior, and they may end up blocking you from editing at all. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you complaining i removed someones claim that counted abandoned Leopard 2s as "total-write offs" despite that being way off the definition of what "abandoned is" by oryx, the source being cited? D1d2d3d29 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was not your edit summary, and you know it. This is getting tedious, and I'm no longer going to assume good faith from you given that. Your edit summary included: "That's difficult to do from far away footage"
You have been made aware for months now that your personal interpretation of photographic or video evidence is NOT to be used when making edits on Wikipedia or justifying said edits, as it violates our policies on original research. Do so again, and you will be reported for your repeated knowing and intentional violation of Wikipedia policies, and you may have your editing privileges (they are a privilege, not a right) revoked and be blocked from editing this encyclopedia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary was a question to the author of that original edit for why they added it by expressing my confusion over where that statement could even come from, i initially removed the edit for being unsourced.
Did you really re-add an unsourced statements just because you didn't like the commentary over the edit that removed it? Did i get that right? D1d2d3d29 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence I quoted was a statement, and not a question. If you wish to discuss the edit in question, do so on the relevant talk page. What we are discussing here is your repeated violation of policy. Do you understand that you cannot use your own interpretation of photo or video evidence to make or justify edits on Wikipedia? Yes or no will suffice. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell is "Why are you assuming how many of those leos are write-off?" a statement and not a question????
"If you wish to discuss the edit in question, do so on the relevant talk page" you brought it up here! Why can't i discuss one of my own edits on my own talk page after someone else brought it up on that page?
> Do you understand that you cannot use your own interpretation of photo or video evidence to make or justify edits on Wikipedia?
Again, that is not the part I quoted. I quoted the part where you made a statement about the video evidence. I brought up here the issue of your breaking policy, not a discussion of the merits of inclusion or not of content in a given article. If you wish to discuss that, do so at the proper venue. As for your claim that you've never made edits based on your own interpretation, one need only look at your talk page here to know that isn't true, but here are some examples:
"No tertiary sources and bonkers claim" (tertiary sources are not required on Wikipedia, and your own opinion on the claim being "bonkers" or not is just that, your own interpretation, and not allowed as justification for an edit)
Do you understand that you cannot use your own interpretations of photographic or video evidence, your own interpretations of statements being made, your own interpretations of "incredulity" or "bonkers," etc.? This is a yes or no question. Please answer in that form so I know if you understand the policies of editing on Wikipedia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i know that i can't use my own opinions or conclusions as sources on wikipedia, and i never used my own words or self published works as a source when adding something.
"Again, that is not the part I quoted" you quoted a part were i said that judging wheter or not something is a write-off from far away footage is difficult, which is a reasonable thing to point out when you a criticizing a statement which only used Oryx blog as a source, and Oryx blog is literally nothing but footage and photographic evidence, it is a continuation of my first sentence in that summary which is me asking where did they get the total write-offs number from
Also i think i should mention that i am not against using Oryx blog as a source, but only because there are no alternatives to it when it comes to major OSINT websites that congregate photographic evidence. Oryx blog is run by multiple people who do not have the same standards or biases making it inconsistent, i personally talked to 3 different members of the Oryx blog team and followed them for months on twitter and i noticed multiple differences among them, for example rebel44cz and Oryx himself have different standards for what amount of damage counts as "destroyed" or "damaged", so depending on who was updating the list at the time the ratio of destroyed to damaged vehicles and what counts as destroyed was noticebly different, for example i saw Oryx counting a tank that merely got hit into the engine as "destroyed", while Rebel44 counted a tank that got hit in the engine AND had it's fuel system catch fire as just "damaged". Using Oryx is fine if there is no alternative (the only real alternative is warspotting, but they aren't 1 to 1 equivalents) but trying to make some definitive conclusions or wild speculations based on it is a bad idea D1d2d3d29 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent you your diffs where you have violated policy. Your continued refusal to acknowledge your past and recent behavior does not lead me to believe you have any intention of following Wikipedia policies. Should you continue in your editing behavior, you will be referred to administrative action. Have a nice day. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:
Editor: probably notable but your second source leads to a forum, which is WP:USERGENERATED so not allowed. Any chance of finding better sources? I'm sure it was discussed in historical books or even in NATO reports?
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:PRV-9 radio altimeter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, D1d2d3d29!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Qcne(talk)20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Praseodymium-141 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gunner, HEAT, PC! (video game) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vrxces was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Unfortunately lacks notability under WP:GNG due to having no review sources and little significant coverage from reliable sources. The PC Gamer article seems to be the only independently reliable recognised source under WP:VG/S. I'd recommend seeing if there's any reviews of this game and creating a review section as per WP:VG/MOS and go from there. Happy to chat if you need any help or questions.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gunner, HEAT, PC! (video game) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Not seeing the article pass GNG. Furthermore please read WP:USERG and remove any sources which may violate this.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gunner, Heat, PC! and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
