Wikipedia requires that references be included at the same time as facts are added. Your edits will continue to be reverted if you do not include references. David notMD (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not contest your reverts of my removals of content, but in the future, if you add content, add references at the same time. Your user-page statement "Hi everyone! I am interested in history and know a lot of this subject, but i have a bad habit that i never add citations(my facts are usually correct but i never remember to add citations)." is not an excuse for not adding references. David notMD (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blue Wizard Digital, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages M24, P90 and SVD. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
On a related note, I have reverted your nomination of USS North Carolina (BB-55) for FA. It's pretty bad form to nominate articles for reviews if you haven't edited them previously, or even bothered to discuss it with the people who wrote the articles. If you had, I'd have told you that the sourcing on that article is not what it needs to be for FA. You should really only nominate articles for review if you have edited them significantly, or have at least opened a discussion on the talk page so those who wrote the article can advise you whether the article is ready or not. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from 2023 visit by Joe Biden to Ukraine. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. This issue is currently the topic of ongoing discussions. Please do not remove the notability tag until those conversations are resolved. Thank you.Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese destroyer Nanchang (101), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yu-7.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Thank you for contributing to the article YJ-12. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding this edit, do all of those sources list those units specifically as being "commando" units? If they're just generally recognized as SOF but not specifically identified as being commandos, they should not be included on that page. Additionally, some of those sources appear to be questionably reliable -- notably the Bili bili video link appears to fail WP:RS. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!05:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just got the units and sources from the PLASOF article, as previously there was one of the listed units which was a PLAGF special forces unit and I just merely used the criteria that all PLAGF spec ops units are commando units; however on the PLANMC 7th marine brigade and airborne corps special forces brigade I also question whether they are a commando unit and i just purely added links to them(as they were listed there prior). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all PLAGF special operations units are commando units. If we do not have a source claiming they are, we cannot include them in this list. Until we can adequately investigate whether there are reliable sources making this claim, I'm going to revert your edit as it constitutes synthesis. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the remaining units (Jiaolong, Thor, and Snow Leopard) were cited by this source specifically as being commando units and have been for many months now. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7th Marine Brigade/Jiaolong is a bit more similar to Navy SEALS while Airborne corps special force brigade/Thor/Thunder gods are more of a 45th spetsnaz brigade.
i would not consider these "commando units", especially due to the fact that the 7th marine brigade was deployed to the gulf of aden to fight pirates. However I will not dispute this too much as after all i'm not the biggest expert on military terminology and english wikipedia is sort of messy when it comes to the PLA Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed. Definition of "commando unit" also differs a lot, some people say it is any elite infantry unit and some say it is light infantry(however either way snow leopard commando unit is a gendarme SWAT unit like the GIGN and not really conventional infantry) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
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.
The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba 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:7th Marine Brigade 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, Thehistorianisaac!
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! Jamiebuba (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Feeglgeef (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I almost always apply the assume good faith policy however in this case I really doubt good faith can be applied, as the edit summaries are openly stating that they are trying to push an agenda. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you reflexively revert my constructive edits
Hello please do not show prejudice towards me simply because I am an IP user. The edit you reverted was necessary to undue the damage done by wikiuser4020 who has been spamming citations from a few cherrypicked sources to support their fringe Pov towards an afrocentrist interpretation of Egypt thus lending undue weight my edits were necessary to maintain the integrity of this encyclopedia if you will look at their editing history you will see a clear example of Pov pushing. Please undo your reversion. 2600:1007:B0B7:9AFB:B145:B6D7:4C46:A321 (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not showing prejudice towards you even though you are an IP user, I was randomly scrolling through random changes and decided to make sure it was not vandalism
Other editors have pointed out the sources are reliable, and your edit summary is just, frankly, continous ranting about "fringe POVs".
I will not undo my revision since I did nothing wrong. If you want contact an admin if you still insist that you are correct, but I am simply just doing my job at preventing vandalism
Listen: I am not an expert on this subject but I can safely claim your edits count as disruptive editing, as they are tentitious(from reading your contributions, tonnes of your similar edits have been reverted already), are targeted towards another user and are overall disruptive. If you think some of the content is biased consult wikiproject ancient egypt, but absolutely do not delete huge parts of an article without consensus. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would consider your edits tendentious. I don't think they are from a neutral point of view, and are targeted towards an user.
Also to be honest don't rant at me, go consult users that are experts on this subject if you think that editor's edits are biased. I am only here to enforce policies. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I AM an expert in this field! I am defending the neutrality of this encyclopedia from an obviously tendentious editor if you can’t tell that than you are not qualified to edit articles on this subject leave it to experts such as myself 2600:1007:B0B7:9AFB:9941:DCC2:9237:FEFC (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest
Go on wikiproject ancient egypt if you think I am wrong. Don't rant on here. I am only here to stop disruptive edits, which obviously your edits count as disruptive. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Talk:Rebiya Kadeer, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your claim that the "... article is within the scope of the terrorism task force as she is a terrorist sympathizer" sounds like something that the Chinese government would say and accuse its opponents of being. However, Wikipedia requires stronger evidence than your claim before considering an article to be within the scope of the Terrorism task force. After all, applying such a contentious label as "terrorist" depends on one's point of view, while Wikipedia should hold a neutral point of view about the subjects of its articles. Designating a person as a "terrorist" needs to be supported by reliable evidence, such as been convicted of terrorism related crimes, or being designated so by a government. That is not the case with Rebiya Kadeer who appears to have been imprisoned for sharing state secrets. While her imprisonment qualifies her for inclusion in WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, it does not meet the threshold for the Terrorism task force. See WP:BLPCRIME and MOS:LABEL for applicable Wikipedia policies. As a consequence, I have removed the task force attribute from the WikiProject banner as per WP:PROJSCOPE. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Thehistorianisaac! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Is a photo adequate evidence?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
I've noticed that you are creating redirects (most of which are barely used) in the form of "CNS name of ship". Short of an official Chinese policy document concerning ship prefixes, this should be discussed on relevant talk pages before you continue. At the very least, an open review of the matter would ensure everyone is on the same page, since this could affect how articles are named and stuff like that. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I saw a CNS Liaoning redirect before I even started editing wikipedia, so i did the same to other ships
Yes, I am aware of various uses of PLANS or CNS in various media, Chinese or otherwise. That's not the same as being official PLAN policy. The PLAN and the ship prefix articles don't mention any such policy, and likely why article names don't use them, and why their use should be avoided in general. Hence, the usefulness of having a discussion first if there has been a change. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that people made CNS Shandong and CNS Liaoning before so i just decided to do the same for other ships
After all, for some of the more famous ones there has been media that has used the CNS prefix and overall it just is much better than writing Chinese (type of ship) (ship name) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I actually think i made a discussion on the list of PLAN ships talk page
nobody responded though
But yeah if there are some third-party sources(possibly incorrect, i have to admit but yes quite some sources) using the CNS prefix i think the redirect should exsist Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No matter the outcome of the discussion i still would suggest not removing the redirects, as no matter whether CNS is an official prefix or just set by some sources there are quite a lot of sources that use it so even if it turns out it is incorrect i would suggest keeping the redirects Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest reopening the discussion, notifying relevant Wikipedia projects for input (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history), and providing sources to verify the position that "CNS" is the PLAN's official ship prefix. Because right now neither the ship prefix nor People's Liberation Army Navy articles support that position
i wouldn't suggest removing the redirects yet, some people do use the CNS prefix after all(due to some third-party sources; in fact im not even the first person to make CNS (ship name) redirects because before i even started editing there was already a CNS Liaoning redirect); As for official sources i think i might have seen both PLANS and CNS in CCTV footage but no official stuff from PLAN or chinese MOD yet and i also don't remember which video i saw them use PLANS or CS
The misconception of the CNS is common enough to make the creation of redirects justified, especially for examples like CNS Nanchang or CNS Hainan where the prefix is often used in media. I have to admit, for smaller vessels they may not be needed but for larger ships where the prefix is commonly seen the redirects may be necessary.
Hello Thehistorianisaac! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Error with interlanguage link template, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Hello Thehistorianisaac! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How do I move an article if the title i need to move it to is a redirect page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged a page that you created (Chinese ship Ji'an) for deletion because it is an unnecessary disambiguation page per one of the criteria at WP:G14.
If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Miminity}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
