User talk:Belevalo

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Belevalo! Thank you for your contributions. I am Mitchellhobbs 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. 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:

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! ~mitch~ (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belevalo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Belevalo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

List of military special forces units

So you're back to this again. I had thought you would've learned some things since then, about how to constructively edit and how to collaborate. Instead, you continue with your bizarre edits, which are purely disruptive, and you continue to edit war, to debate via edit summaries instead discussing on article talk pages, you repeatedly remove sourced content and add, or re-add, unsupported content. Your editing is disruptive and tendentious. I strongly encourage you to restore the page and discuss your concerns, as policy requires, on the talk page. While you seem to have an issue with this edit, (you claim the units are not special forces, despite sources supporting they are), you had no cause to make this this edit. (Consider the previous notice, and this post, as the pre-requisite warning and attempt to discuss, needed for a complaint). - wolf 23:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i removed the because it gives the impression of being the only unit under SWC, since you removed the other brigades. Also, you removed all brigades from the Russian ground forces component of the GRU as well but left the Airborne forces? contrast this with the SOCOM/JSOC section where you didn't touch the components that highlighted the units and from which branch of the army they're from, etc. You also added the Ground forces as a SF unit. what the hell is going on? it's just confusing. Some units highlighted, others are not. it's all over the place. Belevalo (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You complain of "confusing" edits, but your comment here doesn't make any sense. If you want to discuss the article, that is what the article talk page is for, but you would still need to revert those edits. Though with your last edit summary (the one that included another blatant personal attack) you give the impression that you are abandoning the article. This post is in regards to your behavior, which is why it's on your user talk page. - wolf 00:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's confusing because i'm following your edit pattern. Have a template for every section (lets say US, since it's the largest and do all other sections the same)Belevalo (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated you were done with the article. If that is case, then say so here & now and leave it be.
If you intend to continue editing the article, then you need you discuss matters pertaining to the article, on the article talk page, that's what's it there for. You would need to self revert. Otherwise, you can expect your edits to be reverted. (But I am giving you the chance to self-revert first)
Either way, I'm not discussing the article here. I want all discussion on the article talk page, so other editors can see. (And take part if they so choose). If you don't self-revert, then those edits will be reverted. If you continue to edit war, now that you've both been warned and given an opportunity to discuss, you can expect to be reported. In that case, all of your recent behavior will be included in the report.
This is your opportunity to stop being disruptive and either engage collaboratively, or leave the page be. - wolf 02:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not perfect the way it is, but it was worse before revert. Belevalo (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you're refusing to engage on the article talk page, so I'll take that as you choosing to leave the article and move on to other things. No hard feelings. Have a nice day - wolf 14:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of military special forces units - again

Your behavior is disruptive. You need to decide if you are going to be involved in the article or not. If so, you need to engage collaboratively on the article's talk page. If there is content you disagree with, then say so. Repeatedly removing sourced content with cryptic edit summaries, and refusing to discuss, is not how Wikipedia works. That is a list article, the content is supported one of two ways; it's linked to a parent article, that includes info and sourcing, or it has a source directly attached to it. You don't remove an item, because "there are numerous battalions. putting in only one gives a false impression"... it states clearly at the top of the page that the "list is incomplete". Along with removing info, if you disagree with an edit, you don't dump in a ton of useless info, just to make a point.

If you look, you'll notice that that last time I cleaned up the page (last two times, actually), I edited one country at a time. That way, each country can be evaluated individually. You'll also notice that the suppressed note, reminding users of how to edit the list per the WP's guidelines, has been added to each and every country and is written the same for each and every country.

I have written all this out, as a required step before filing a complaint. If your behavior continues, you can expect a well-documented report to be filed at ANI. But really, I'd rather you just be cooperative. So again, if you want to edit that list, then you need to discuss any issues on the article talk page. If you don't want to do that, then just leave the page be. There are many other articles to edit on WP. - wolf 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again

So the disruption continues. This is just a slow-edit war, using hit-and-run tactics; leaving edit summaries, but still refusing to engage on a talk page. So, with this latest edit, you are in fact not disengaging from that article. With that, can I now confirm you are still refusing to engage in any discussion? (whether on this page, regarding your behavior, or on the article talk page, regarding article content)

Again, if you intend to continue editing that article, then you need to discuss any contested edits. If the disruption continues, if the refusal to engage continues, you will be reported. I am making an effort here. (an effort that will be documented in any report). You can either start being co-operative, or move on to other articles. Either choice avoids the need for any report. This is up entirely up to you. - wolf 05:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO SOURCE! put a source and i'll leave it alone. it's ectra buggy that i regularly talk with a former rok marine recon who says that it's not an SF.Belevalo (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, just noticed this now. I'm not sure what "ectra buggy" is supposed to mean (that it bothers you a lot?), but the fact that you "talk with a former rok maine recon" means nothing as far as supporting your edits, that is considered original research. You need to realize that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You also need to keep all discussion about an article on the article talk page. - wolf 13:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Special Air Service Regiment, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Meticulo (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Special Air Service Regiment 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit war, please see the discussion at Talk:Special Air Service Regiment. I would suggest that you consider WP:MOSLEAD regarding this issue. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Special Air Service Regiment

Hello Belevalo. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of this complaint. You are risking a block if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian SF

Regarding this edit, I would suggest that you try some WP:SECONDARY sources, as opposed to this WP:PRIMARY source, you may have better luck finding useful refs. - wolf 16:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is still incomplete. There are 2 more units, 11 PARA and 12 PARA. SReader21 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Belevalo! Your additions to Iraqi Special Operations Forces have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]