Welcome to Wikipedia, Reaper1945! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
Destroyeraa and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{
Ping|Destroyeraa}} such that I get
notified of your request. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Orders of magnitude (power), without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. If reinstating material about the
2004 Indian ocean earthquake, please be sure to cite a source on the power output, as otherwise the added content is considered
original research.
Ionmars10 (
talk) 03:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly call it original research, it's stated that the time in which the quake lasted was 10 minutes, and in order to calculate watts you divide watt-hours by time. Reaper1945 ( talk) 03:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, excuse any mistakes I make or delay in response, I'm getting use to some of the processes on here. Reaper1945 ( talk) 03:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Scholarly Barnstar | |
| message DishingMachine ( talk) 00:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Mathsci ( talk) 04:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring at Race and capital punishment in the United States
This is your second warning within an hour for the same behavior on the same page. (I see that you've just deleted our notices.) After being warned by NightHeron, you went and continued edit warring over the same content. If you continue with this behavior I will not warn you again before proceeding to ANE. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Check your own behavior before you lash out at others, you coming to the defense of an editor after a large discussion in another section shows your bias in the conversation at hand. Refrain from being irrational. Reaper1945 ( talk) 04:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
School discipline; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Note that per
WP:ONUS The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Generalrelative (
talk) 05:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Your edit in Champions Chess Tour 2021
Hi – I just undid this edit you made in Champions Chess Tour 2021. I believe the points were correct as previously stated. You can see the points awarded for the FTX Crypto Cup at 5:01:30 in the commentary stream with Leko and Sachdev. (Wikipedia doesn't let me post the YouTube link here, but you can find it under "day 2 finals ftx crypto".) If you disagree, please explain why (here or on the talk page). Joriki ( talk) 19:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Looked at the point system, yours is most likely the correct version, looked at the point table from Chess24.com, they had it as 88 for Carlsen, 56 for So, but later corrected it to the version put in currently. Was a mistake. ---- Reaper1945 ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
You haven't even provided an edit summary here (something which you should definitively do when you revert a good-faith edit). Please then take the opportunity here to explain why you think the material you re-instated should be included: as I said, it's an obvious example of WP:NOTDATABASE. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
First off, don't use my talk page to harass or complain, there's a thousand other places. Second off, every fighter, whether MMA or boxing has their fights and results listed near the bottom of their pages, don't know why you randomly targeted Whittaker's page for really no reason when it has already been established. Reaper1945 ( talk) 05:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Talk pages are exactly there to point out issues with edits. As to your second point, is this some form of Wikiproject
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Because clearly that would be the only explanation why material which is so obviously
WP:NOTDATABASE is there (and it still wouldn't be a good reason not to remove it: rather, it would be grounds to go and overhaul whatever the Wikiproject guidelines are). We don't have play-by-play accounts for any other sport, nor do footballers, or even participants in other individual sports (like fencing) get a match-by-match database listing in their articles.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 12:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the talk page of the page in question. I'm not the person to ask about it, the information about their fights and results have been there for years, it's not some idea that was created over night. Results for fights and competitions are listed for wrestlers, boxers and MMA fighters. Reaper1945 ( talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi @ Reaper1945 Please don't forget to source your edits per WP:CITE and WP:RS Thank you Lewolka ( talk) 09:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
List of current UFC fighters, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Cassiopeia
talk 09:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, this information has been rejected on the talkpage, and the IP started a povpushing edit war instead. Please do not participate. Beibler ( talk) 22:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to
Erling Haaland, you added
links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see
Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.
TylerBurden (
talk) 02:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Erling Haaland, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Mattythewhite (
talk) 16:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.
You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY
date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:
mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.
If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Mattythewhite ( talk) 15:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Erling Haaland, you may be
blocked from editing. Several prior warnings for unsourced content, please start using references for your edits.
TylerBurden (
talk) 07:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 11:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
If you are going to restore absurd material like this [ [1]] in which the victorious side is supposed to have had 500% more tank losses, then at least provide a RS. The citation you added has a URL which includes nationalinterest.org/blog. If you are familiar with Wiki, you should know blogs are not considered to be RS. This blog author does not even know that Germany was fighting the Soviet Union and not Russia when he writes "Germany had a choice: wait to be hammered by another offensive from the Russian steamroller".
There are a ton of books by Western authors which have ridiculous Soviet casualty figures, you may be able to find one which says 1:6. JS ( talk) 19:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- You wrote "It's quite obvious from the casualties section that the Soviet Union suffered far greater losses. Instead of removing it, provide a source which actually debunks it." This is not how it works.
- 1) One does not add stuff and then say "find something to contradict it or let it stay".
- 2) If you *infer* from the casualties section that the Soviet tank losses were 500% greater, you are doing original research. You can't do that, you have to find an actual RS which says that.
- 3) When it comes to wars and casualties, authors lie through their teeth (just see what if currently happening in Ukraine), but we Wiki editors can exercise a bit of judgement. The blog you cite has the text "historians David Glantz and Jonathan House estimate the Germans lost 323 tanks destroyed, or about 10 percent of the tanks committed to the offensive (and a fraction of the 12,000 tanks and self-propelled guns the Third Reich built in 1943)." Really? The entire German HQ understood that Kursk was their last chance to do serious damage to the Red Army, and a loss there meant the war was lost. You think they would call off the attack "Just as the SS Panzers were about to achieve a decisive breakthrough" if they had only lost 2.7% of one year's production. Even if they did "breakthrough" it would not have been "decisive" they would still have to deal Soviet reserves.
- Guderian is himself quoted as saying "With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come". You think the loss of 2.7% of one year's production equals "lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come"? Ridiculous blog!
- JS ( talk) 00:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gareth Bale, you may be blocked from editing. Seasider53 ( talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Also:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Seasider53 ( talk) 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:
- Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those
monitoring activity on the article.
- The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
- Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).
Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric talk 22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I think you have some wrong in Battle of Stalingrad. Walsh's numbers including 494,374 German’s allied casualties, and 400,000 German casualties. Thus, total number is 894,374, not 794,374 123.18.99.55 ( talk) 04:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- According to Walsh "The combined German losses of 6th Army and 4th Panzer were over 300,000 men", and if expanded to included the date of 28 June and Army Group A, it would be 600,000, which is not an accurate number. Reaper1945 ( talk) 04:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Please read the policy on undue weight, which is that not all sources and theories are equal. Some sources have higher levels of journalistic integrity and fact checking than others, and sources such as Associated Press and Reuters are gold standards. We have literally hundreds of articles on one side, versus a single one from a Russian source. Until the high quality sources take this theory seriously, it is simply undue to include it. Our loyalty are to our readers to give them the best information possible, not to include all possible theories and viewpoints, irrespective of the quality of said theories.
For Russian sources specifically, the country lacks a fully free press. They are ranked 164 on the World Press Freedom Index and the deterioration of the free press in Russia is well documented. Russian sources should not be cited in a proper encyclopedia article as of now. Furthermore, Ukrainian press should not be cited either. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.
TylerBurden ( talk) 16:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Battle of Chasiv Yar for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chasiv Yar 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 until the discussion has finished.Super Ψ Dro 00:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 22:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 02:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 03:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Reaper1945 and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
- The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
- The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
- Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
- We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
- We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
- If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
- If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 11:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Reaper1945,
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:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
When adding citations, please adhere to the format used on the rest of the page, as otherwise, it creates unnecessary work for other editors. When a solid academic source has already been cited, it's often superfluous to add more citations. Better editorial time can be spent on articles in need of attention. For instance, there's not much value added/dropping citations in an article like Operations Barbarossa, which is thoroughly researched and appropriately cited. If new information shows up or you're adding a source for a contentious statement where academic consensus has not been established, it may make sense. Thanks and happy editing. Obenritter ( talk) 15:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Reaper1945! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
Destroyeraa and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{
Ping|Destroyeraa}} such that I get
notified of your request. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Orders of magnitude (power), without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. If reinstating material about the
2004 Indian ocean earthquake, please be sure to cite a source on the power output, as otherwise the added content is considered
original research.
Ionmars10 (
talk) 03:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly call it original research, it's stated that the time in which the quake lasted was 10 minutes, and in order to calculate watts you divide watt-hours by time. Reaper1945 ( talk) 03:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, excuse any mistakes I make or delay in response, I'm getting use to some of the processes on here. Reaper1945 ( talk) 03:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
|
|
Scholarly Barnstar | |
| message DishingMachine ( talk) 00:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Mathsci ( talk) 04:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring at Race and capital punishment in the United States
This is your second warning within an hour for the same behavior on the same page. (I see that you've just deleted our notices.) After being warned by NightHeron, you went and continued edit warring over the same content. If you continue with this behavior I will not warn you again before proceeding to ANE. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Check your own behavior before you lash out at others, you coming to the defense of an editor after a large discussion in another section shows your bias in the conversation at hand. Refrain from being irrational. Reaper1945 ( talk) 04:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
School discipline; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Note that per
WP:ONUS The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Generalrelative (
talk) 05:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Your edit in Champions Chess Tour 2021
Hi – I just undid this edit you made in Champions Chess Tour 2021. I believe the points were correct as previously stated. You can see the points awarded for the FTX Crypto Cup at 5:01:30 in the commentary stream with Leko and Sachdev. (Wikipedia doesn't let me post the YouTube link here, but you can find it under "day 2 finals ftx crypto".) If you disagree, please explain why (here or on the talk page). Joriki ( talk) 19:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Looked at the point system, yours is most likely the correct version, looked at the point table from Chess24.com, they had it as 88 for Carlsen, 56 for So, but later corrected it to the version put in currently. Was a mistake. ---- Reaper1945 ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
You haven't even provided an edit summary here (something which you should definitively do when you revert a good-faith edit). Please then take the opportunity here to explain why you think the material you re-instated should be included: as I said, it's an obvious example of WP:NOTDATABASE. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
First off, don't use my talk page to harass or complain, there's a thousand other places. Second off, every fighter, whether MMA or boxing has their fights and results listed near the bottom of their pages, don't know why you randomly targeted Whittaker's page for really no reason when it has already been established. Reaper1945 ( talk) 05:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Talk pages are exactly there to point out issues with edits. As to your second point, is this some form of Wikiproject
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Because clearly that would be the only explanation why material which is so obviously
WP:NOTDATABASE is there (and it still wouldn't be a good reason not to remove it: rather, it would be grounds to go and overhaul whatever the Wikiproject guidelines are). We don't have play-by-play accounts for any other sport, nor do footballers, or even participants in other individual sports (like fencing) get a match-by-match database listing in their articles.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 12:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the talk page of the page in question. I'm not the person to ask about it, the information about their fights and results have been there for years, it's not some idea that was created over night. Results for fights and competitions are listed for wrestlers, boxers and MMA fighters. Reaper1945 ( talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi @ Reaper1945 Please don't forget to source your edits per WP:CITE and WP:RS Thank you Lewolka ( talk) 09:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
List of current UFC fighters, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Cassiopeia
talk 09:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, this information has been rejected on the talkpage, and the IP started a povpushing edit war instead. Please do not participate. Beibler ( talk) 22:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to
Erling Haaland, you added
links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see
Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.
TylerBurden (
talk) 02:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Erling Haaland, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Mattythewhite (
talk) 16:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.
You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY
date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:
mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.
If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Mattythewhite ( talk) 15:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Erling Haaland, you may be
blocked from editing. Several prior warnings for unsourced content, please start using references for your edits.
TylerBurden (
talk) 07:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 11:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
If you are going to restore absurd material like this [ [1]] in which the victorious side is supposed to have had 500% more tank losses, then at least provide a RS. The citation you added has a URL which includes nationalinterest.org/blog. If you are familiar with Wiki, you should know blogs are not considered to be RS. This blog author does not even know that Germany was fighting the Soviet Union and not Russia when he writes "Germany had a choice: wait to be hammered by another offensive from the Russian steamroller".
There are a ton of books by Western authors which have ridiculous Soviet casualty figures, you may be able to find one which says 1:6. JS ( talk) 19:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- You wrote "It's quite obvious from the casualties section that the Soviet Union suffered far greater losses. Instead of removing it, provide a source which actually debunks it." This is not how it works.
- 1) One does not add stuff and then say "find something to contradict it or let it stay".
- 2) If you *infer* from the casualties section that the Soviet tank losses were 500% greater, you are doing original research. You can't do that, you have to find an actual RS which says that.
- 3) When it comes to wars and casualties, authors lie through their teeth (just see what if currently happening in Ukraine), but we Wiki editors can exercise a bit of judgement. The blog you cite has the text "historians David Glantz and Jonathan House estimate the Germans lost 323 tanks destroyed, or about 10 percent of the tanks committed to the offensive (and a fraction of the 12,000 tanks and self-propelled guns the Third Reich built in 1943)." Really? The entire German HQ understood that Kursk was their last chance to do serious damage to the Red Army, and a loss there meant the war was lost. You think they would call off the attack "Just as the SS Panzers were about to achieve a decisive breakthrough" if they had only lost 2.7% of one year's production. Even if they did "breakthrough" it would not have been "decisive" they would still have to deal Soviet reserves.
- Guderian is himself quoted as saying "With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come". You think the loss of 2.7% of one year's production equals "lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come"? Ridiculous blog!
- JS ( talk) 00:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gareth Bale, you may be blocked from editing. Seasider53 ( talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Also:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Seasider53 ( talk) 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:
- Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those
monitoring activity on the article.
- The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
- Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).
Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric talk 22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I think you have some wrong in Battle of Stalingrad. Walsh's numbers including 494,374 German’s allied casualties, and 400,000 German casualties. Thus, total number is 894,374, not 794,374 123.18.99.55 ( talk) 04:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- According to Walsh "The combined German losses of 6th Army and 4th Panzer were over 300,000 men", and if expanded to included the date of 28 June and Army Group A, it would be 600,000, which is not an accurate number. Reaper1945 ( talk) 04:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Please read the policy on undue weight, which is that not all sources and theories are equal. Some sources have higher levels of journalistic integrity and fact checking than others, and sources such as Associated Press and Reuters are gold standards. We have literally hundreds of articles on one side, versus a single one from a Russian source. Until the high quality sources take this theory seriously, it is simply undue to include it. Our loyalty are to our readers to give them the best information possible, not to include all possible theories and viewpoints, irrespective of the quality of said theories.
For Russian sources specifically, the country lacks a fully free press. They are ranked 164 on the World Press Freedom Index and the deterioration of the free press in Russia is well documented. Russian sources should not be cited in a proper encyclopedia article as of now. Furthermore, Ukrainian press should not be cited either. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.
TylerBurden ( talk) 16:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Battle of Chasiv Yar for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chasiv Yar 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 until the discussion has finished.Super Ψ Dro 00:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 22:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 02:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 03:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Hello Reaper1945 and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
- The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
- The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
- Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
- We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
- We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
- If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
- If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 11:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Reaper1945,
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:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
When adding citations, please adhere to the format used on the rest of the page, as otherwise, it creates unnecessary work for other editors. When a solid academic source has already been cited, it's often superfluous to add more citations. Better editorial time can be spent on articles in need of attention. For instance, there's not much value added/dropping citations in an article like Operations Barbarossa, which is thoroughly researched and appropriately cited. If new information shows up or you're adding a source for a contentious statement where academic consensus has not been established, it may make sense. Thanks and happy editing. Obenritter ( talk) 15:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)