XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024

May I ask why you reverted my edit to List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces? There is no indication of the date "currently" applies to. As an editor you can, at best, say it's a list as of today, you can't say the list is correct when a reader looks at it next month, next year, whenever. Cabayi (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Then, you can just delete the word currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC) from Special:Diff/1031218116Reply

That would leave it as an undated list of equipment. Why wouldn't their WW2 equipment belong in the list if it were undated? The list was current at some point in time, but not "currently". The point in time needs to be specified, not removed, nor its omission concealed. Asking {{when}} achieves that. Cabayi (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear, for the Kronshtadt Orion page, you modified the information regarding the procurement by saying that the Russian MoD had bought 5 batches of Orion drones. However, if we look at the 2 sources you added, it mentions 5 batches of Sirius drones, which is another Russian drone with 2 engines. I thought at first that the source was just confused between the names, but no, the source also states that the Sirius has 2 engines, so they know it is not the Orion. Thus, I wonder, are the sources you added completely wrong? Because, if we read elsewhere, it is the Orion that was purchased by the Russian military, not the Sirius. The Sirius does not even exist nowadays, there is only one mock-up. However, if the source is correct, then we should write in the article that it is the Sirius version that was purchased. We would also need to add a section about the Sirius in the Orion article (as it seems that the Sirius is a modified variant of the Orion, however I would prefer to write a new wikipedia page about the Sirius, it looks more than a variant. The problem being that sources are very confusing about all these Russian drones). What do you think? - Geektrooper2

For clarification, - is the Sirius you are talking about in the Orion article this one: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkH1fckU8AECUk0?format=jpg&name=large It looks quite different from the Orion, it looks like another new drone. - Or do you simply mean an upgraded variant of the Orion which looks like the Orion.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nerekhta. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do have another account under the name HELLAS1990 but I will not use it anymore. No, I don't work with people outside Wikipedia. XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024 (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rosoboronexport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalashnikov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

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.

TylerBurden (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on T-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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. TylerBurden (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

All right, but what do you mean about "bad writing"; I just wrote what is contained in the sources (which you call "fine"). Can you give me an idea about how should I write; Especially I can't find a reason for reverting my edit in the Russian Ground Forces page. In both cases, I just updated the pages (which are relied on sources from 2022 while the situation has obviously changed) using only reliable Western sources. And about references' format, I understand, but I am a person with disabilities, I write using the On-Screen Keyboard, so it's difficult for me. I suppose someone else (or you;) can do it. XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024 (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page ZALA Lancet, 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)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irbis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Russian Armed Forces. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. TylerBurden (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

First of all, as far as I understand, none questions the veracity of the content I added or the reliability of sources like the NATO Commander in Europe, the Guardian or Politico. Someone had a problem with my wording (I did what he asked), you don't want the content to be in the lead section. So, I will put it to the "History" section. If it is removed again, I will have to ask for a dispute resolution because the article must be politically neutral and reflect recent changes. Otherwise, I will have to think that some people here want only negative content in the article. XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024 (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where in this message does anything mention "veracity" of content? The problem is that you are edit warring, and doing so against established guidelines like WP:LEAD. Please read the talk page discussions (in which you were pinged) rather than making straw man arguments. You shoehorning content that doesn't exist within the body of the article into the lead does nothing about neutrality. TylerBurden (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I put it in the "History" section. Is it OK now? XANTHO GENOS 5.5.2024 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Sukhoi Su-57. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Alleged number of aircraft in service nowhere to be found. TylerBurden (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply