Jump to content

User talk:PlanespotterA320

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PlanespotterA320 (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 3 March 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It is approximately 7:39 AM where this user lives.


The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials at Arskoe Cemetery has been nominated for deletion

Category:Burials at Arskoe Cemetery has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice regarding edits in certain topic areas

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

--Neutralitytalk 14:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring / tag-bombing / restoring challenged content

Please don't restore challenged content, as you did at the article National Endowment for Democracy. Your edit restored baseless tags without either talk-page discussion or any basis (there is zero reason, for example, to think that any COI issue is presented). Your edit also made unexplained deletions. Finally, your edit also added new content with problems. First, the content contained weasel wording (like "Critics..." and "Some have described..."). Second, the new content had significant citation issues - you added 2 sentences with 6 citations, but it is completely unclear which citation is supposed to support which content. Third, there's also due weight considerations involved with broad claims ("underhanded, meddling in internal affairs, paternalistic, and imperialist"). Given the challenge, you need to establish a consensus before your content goes in.

I explained all this in my edit summary, but you failed to engage on the article talk page, and instead immediately reverted to reinstate your entire edit. That is not consistent with encyclopedia policy and is also personally discourteous. Please don't do that again. Neutralitytalk 15:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: You do not own the content of the Wikipedia page. Also, flagging issues clearly present in the article is not tag bombing. It is very clear from the sources section that the article is heavily dependent on primary sources and secondary sources closely associated with the subject. The content I deleted was text entirely dependent on primary sources that repeated NED talking points in order to downplay criticism. Each of the phrases "underhanded", "meddling", "paternalistic" and "imperialist" I added was verbatim in one or more of the sources I cited. If you wish to restore the bullet-pointed list of criticisms with counterclaims by NED, find some secondary sources. The content I added had far more sourcing than the content you insist on returning. (It should not be that hard to check a few pages of each book I cited) As for so-called Weasal wording, which is subjective, I would hardly consider "critics say" and such to be weasly in a section about criticism of said subject. As for COI, yes, I do think some editors of the page have a COI, given the intense amount of effort made into keeping a particular yet flawed version of said page. Also, I do not need permission from you, or anyone else, to add useful information supported by secondary sources to a page or point out an obvious problem with heavy dependence on primary sources.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PlanespotterA320: You don't need "permission," but you do need to follow consensus, so if you want to bring the issue to the talk page, I will happy engage there. Neutralitytalk 16:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality:I already brought up the issue on the talkpage. Also, I do NOT need to get a vote of opinion from a group of editors in order to state the obvious. Consensus or not, the article is heavily dependent on primary sources, and has various other problems in terms of content. Silence is a form of consensus, and unless there is an official referendum on the talkpage that officially votes against any mention of NED support of various pro-US governments in Latin America (both democratic and not), I will add said text with the support of secondary sources, both in English and Spanish. Your opinion is not more powerful than mine just because you are an administrator. The English version of the NED article is one of the worst (compared to the more balanced versions on other language wikis with more broad coverage of organization). It is ludicrious to assume that there is consensus for mentioning NED activities in Ukraine, the Arab Spring, and Western Europe, and China but against mentioning their activities everywhere else.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing and statements about other editors

Two points:

First, this diff is quintessential canvassing. Please don't do that.

Second, I would appreciate it if you did not make statements like "Seems like one admin is exerting page ownership." For one thing, I've never invoked my admin status at the NED article, nor do I plan to. For another, please don't make false statements, like the suggestion that I am "exerting page ownership." I challenged your initial edit, and then I went on to substantially expand the article, to include new content from some of the very same sources that you first used, with better context, a fairer representation of what those sources say, and proper attribution (and without some of the very poor sources, like Eva Golinger, that were in your edit). In other words, I worked in good faith to both accommodate your concerns and my concerns. That is how the editing process is supposed to work (see, e.g. WP:BRD). Thanks. Neutralitytalk 22:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: First of all, it was NOT "quintessential canvassing". It was not en-mass, it was open, and the message was neutral (asking for advice - maybe should I have found different sources, left a detailed edit summary, started off with a section header, or should your behavior be brought up with admins?). Please refrain from stalking my edits. Just because you have not invoked admin status at the article does not change the fact that you are an admin and are in a position of power over other editors and should be held to a high standard of behavior (that you haven't exactly upheld, by initially insisting on restoring content dependent on primary sources). I suggest that you refrain from knee-jerk reverting good-faith additions of useful information and removal of poorly sourced content in the future. Furthermore I also ask that you refrain spamming my talkpage with superfluous complaints and "warnings" and instead engage in more productive work (perhaps some copyright cleanup for a change?).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly...

Would you kindly stop making amendments and reversions without giving an edit summary, not giving an edit summary goes against the spirit of WP:EDITSUMCITE and WP:BRD. You have been asked politely by me as well as others to always give an edit summary particularly when what you are doing is a point of discussion. I don't think I'm being unreasonable (nor is anyone else) when they're requesting you to do this. Alssa1 (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Would you kindly...

I wonder what the motivation of Your edits. And in other articles (for example, Vasily Chuikov, Konstantin Gerchik and others) Will you also" edit " the texts? Please do not make any more edits to the article Arkady Ostashev. Hope for your understanding. Mixrunya (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mixrunya: My motivation is to enforce standards for basic english and wikiformatting. It is incredibly obvious that you copy-pasted google translated text into the mainspace without any typo of copyediting (as evidenced by the many instances of "A. I. Ostasheva" appearing in the article. It is also standard to use dmy dates for these types of articles and to not have award icons. You are clearly unfamiliar with the practices of English Wikipedia, so I must order you to refrain from any further significant editing activities. Failure to do so, such as reverting to the unedited machine-translated text, will result in administrator intervention.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hailey-Likely, you think you're right, but you're not. I wrote this and other articles independently, I have a direct relationship to the topic and I really hope that my copyright will be respected regardless of the ownership of the free encyclopedia. I hope For your decency and ability to return the article to its original appearance. Mixrunya (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the abhorrent grammatical quality of the article, changes to it are absolutely nessesary and will continue to be made. It is not an infringement of your copyright to edit that article - you released the text under a free licence that allowed changed when you published it on Wikipedia. You do not have the right to assert ownership of the article and insist that no improvements be made to the linguistic catastrophe that you published. Now, get off my talkpage.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I obey and obey...

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Героини войны: Очерки о женщинах - Героях Советского Союза

Героини войны: Очерки о женщинах - Героях Советского Союза should be available here. Regards.--Catlemur (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Syria

As has been discussed many times on the article talk page, removing the rebel flag should not follow immediately and directly from military victories and defeats, but rather from changes in the diplomatic situation. AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: I brought up the diplomatic situation on the talkpage. As I've said, just because a government isn't 100% recognized by every state doesn't mean that equal footing should be given between it and a non-existant self-proclaiming government. ~20 countries have formal or informal relations with the rebel "gov" (some hostile negotion, not supportive diplomatic recognition), while the SAA is recognized and has positive relations with dozens more. Just because a few Global North countries don't recognize a defacto gov doesn't mean it is on equal footing with a ragtag group of disorganized rebels fighting each other that could hardly be called a government. In other news, Kosovo and Israel are not 100% recognized, but this nonsense isn't happening in the articles about their flags--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning iconAlso note the article is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorised by the community (see: WP:GS/SCW&ISIL). The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours WP:1RR. Your second reversion violates these sanctions. Please follow WP:BRD practice and seek consensus rather than continuing to use revert. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adoption

Hi! My name is MaybeJam (obviously) and I was wondering if you would adopt me. You seem very active and experienced and I need to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks! MaybeJam (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicholas Alkemade.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nicholas Alkemade.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Медаль Жукова" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Медаль Жукова. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Template:Медаль Жукова until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mansur Mustafaevich Mazinov.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mansur Mustafaevich Mazinov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Uyghur genocide

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Uyghur genocide. 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Two reverts is not an editwar. And prematuraly removing problem tags isn't good.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two reverts plus the original edit within two hours would appear to be edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation list

You're deleting other datas on the list just to put accidents as self-immolations. LeticiaLL (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even look at the sources, all are propaganda sites. LeticiaLL (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LeticiaLL: You have not sourced your assertion that those incidents on Norwuz were accidents. The claim that it was self-immolation is sourced, your claim that it was an accident isn't. There is a plethora of academic literature supporting the notion it was self-immolation. Now, get off my talkpage and stop pushing your cheap Turkish propaganda.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even Turkish. LeticiaLL (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. Get off my talkpage.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. - wolf 17:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at List of political self-immolations

Hello PlanespotterA320. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You are risking a block if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Information icon Hi PlanespotterA320! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Uyghur genocide that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Soles4Souls logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Soles4Souls logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your duplicate RM at Uyghur genocide

I've procedurally closed the RM. Only one RM is allowed to be active at a time. You're welcome to suggest the new page name at the currently running RM. Thank you. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Wikipedia could use more voices like yours. Mαuri ’96 (talk · cont) 23:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Soles4Souls logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Soles4Souls logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt me!

I want to be adopted. I've been editing for a month but I keep making mistakes. I only edit outer space related articles. There is a discussion about me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Wikipedia. When you respond, please {{mention}} me. Starship SLS (formerly IP 64.121.103.144) (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lyolya Magometovna Boguzokova.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lyolya Magometovna Boguzokova.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at American Indian Wars 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. - Donald Albury 20:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community Sanctions Alert

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 Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating userboxes in the correct namespace

When creating userboxes that have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, such as {{Pro-Assad}}, please be sure to put them in user space per WP:UBM. I went ahead and moved that one to your user space at {{User:PlanespotterA320/Userboxes/Supports Assad}} to match the naming of your existing userbox at {{User:PlanespotterA320/Userboxes/Bangladesh Bloggers}}. However, I don't know what other userboxes you have created in the template namespace. If any, please move them too. Thanks. – voidxor 00:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I migrated the Airbus and Boeing ones while working with them, but I would really appreciate if you would move the remainder of your userboxes from template space to user space per WP:UBM and WP:UBXNS. Seeing the other comments on your talk page, I'll add that it's important to follow policy to avoid inconveniencing other editors. Thanks again. – voidxor 20:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Leyla Ələsgər qızı Məmmədbəyova.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Leyla Ələsgər qızı Məmmədbəyova.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Leyla Ələsgər qızı Məmmədbəyova.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Leyla Ələsgər qızı Məmmədbəyova.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Crimean Tatars 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.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a reverted edit

Hey, I know you have nothing to do with what I'm going to ask you, but since you're on the mentor page I figured maybe you could help as I really don't know who else I could ask. So the problem is that my edits keep getting reverted by the ClueBott (see here). However, reporting it as a false positive would take way too long until it gets reviewed and since I'm still pretty new, I might have made a mistake. I have no clue what I did wrong though, so I wanted to ask you if maybe you find something I did wrong or if not, what I could try to do then. CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally posted your reply in wrong talk page section

See Talk:Uyghur genocide. You meant to reply to me in the move discussion section but instead posted a reply at the end of the discussion about the wording "amounting to". You might want to move your reply to the correct place. Mr248 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Yevdokiya Andreyevna Nikulina portrait.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yevdokiya Andreyevna Nikulina portrait.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mariya Borisovna Osipova.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mariya Borisovna Osipova.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vasily Arkhipov for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vasily Arkhipov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasily Arkhipov 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.

Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ivan Nikiforovich Boyko.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ivan Nikiforovich Boyko.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtem Seitablayev

Hello. If we use standardised spelling on Wikipedia why do we have different editions of the surname in the paper (Seitablayev, Seitablaiev, Seitablaev)? I think we should just have one edition (-ayev or -aiev, but not -aev). And Shevketovych can only be -vych (for example Oleksiyovych, Oleksandrovych). What do you think of it all? — QAtlantic.mn (talk), 13:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

We have an official romanization system for cyrillic on Wikipedia. Because some people with cyrillic names use the non-standard way in official reference to their names in their english media, there are exceptions. In the case of Seitablayev, there's been a bit of a stupid editwar over this, since the spelling of his name varies greatly across the English publications about him. However, most of his media coverage is not in English, so we will try to keep to Wikipedia standards. The trilingual issue here further complicates things too.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Aliya Nurmuhametqyzy Moldagulova.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aliya Nurmuhametqyzy Moldagulova.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
A Slav-centric nationalist editor just edited in Russo-Circassian War, which really scared me - and as a result of investigating their talk page I found out about you. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for standing against racism and nationalism in Wikipedia. I really thank you. AdigabrekTalk Circassia 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order For Courage 1st class

Template:Order For Courage 1st class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order For Courage 2nd class

Template:Order For Courage 2nd class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order For Courage 3rd class

Template:Order For Courage 3rd class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky 1st Class

Template:Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky 1st Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky 2nd Class

Template:Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky 2nd Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky 3rd Class

Template:Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky 3rd Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of Kutuzov 1st Class

Template:Order of Kutuzov 1st Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of Kutuzov 2nd Class

Template:Order of Kutuzov 2nd Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of Kutuzov 3rd Class

Template:Order of Kutuzov 3rd Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of Suvorov 1st Class

Template:Order of Suvorov 1st Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of Suvorov 2nd Class

Template:Order of Suvorov 2nd Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of Suvorov 3rd Class

Template:Order of Suvorov 3rd Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Alexander Kochetov" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Alexander Kochetov. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 4#Alexander Kochetov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, can you check the situation in this article? You might want to check User talk:Каракорум#Please use English in edit summaries first. This user has been making Russian nationalist edits and calling people who revert his edits as his "opponents". Now they reverted my and other editors' edits at attempting to fix that horrible nationalist POV article calling them "strange edits", and when I undid this act of vandalism it seems they have blamed me for WP:EDITWAR and WP:BATTLEGROUND, which I say is ironic since that's exactly what they have been doing. I think we need a third opinion to avoid an edit war, so can you check that? AdigabrekTalk Circassia 16:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manshuk Mametova

Hi, I saw that you wrote much of the Manshuk Mametova article. It was several years ago and I don't know if you're still watching it, but an editor is challenging the "last stand" sources on Talk:Manshuk Mametova and I thought perhaps you might want to discuss it with them. I don't really know anything about subject, I just reverted their blanking and suggested they discuss it on the talk page. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you already posted there while I was typing here...nm. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ukrainian military decorations and medals templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Ukrainian military decorations and medals templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

notification

Stop icon

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. 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. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC) — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jurate Rosales

Hello, hola PlanespotterA320, it´s already explicit in the article and in the cathegories that Rosales' hypothesis isn´t the standard, that's the interesting side of it. Deleting a so big part of the article makes the effort to translate it of JMabel ends in nothing. It seems an extreme decission, it may be discussed if you want but maybe we don´t have time for it. This user is going to undo the last change in Jurate Rosales' article. It´s nothing personal.Rovirarovere (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Aleksey Konstantinovich Ryazanov.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aleksey Konstantinovich Ryazanov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Honoured editor of the encyclopedia

Template:Honoured editor of the encyclopedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 21:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements
  • After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
  • On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
  • Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
  • The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
  • The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
  • The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
  • The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members

New Members

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Good Article assessment

Deletion

Requested moves

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.
Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 142
FL 15
A 56
GA 505
B 4,573
C 11,878
Start 15,082
Stub 18,754
List 2,539
Category 11,638
Disambig 653
File 2,713
Portal 629
Project 89
Redirect 1,518
Template 2,489
NA 66
Assessed 73,339
Unassessed 1
Total 73,340
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 251,752 Ω = 4.91
New/Ongoing Discussions

On The Main Page

Did you know...

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Florence Nightingale Medal

Template:Florence Nightingale Medal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De-Tatarization of Crimea

I reverted your move, which was against protocol. Consensus was established in a previous move. If you want to move it, please discuss on the article’s talk page, present new evidence, and determine that consensus has changed. Thanks. —Michael Z. 18:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Super Ψ Dro 19:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Own

Please read WP:OWN as you appear to be operating under the mistaken assumption that you can make whatever changes to an article you like, and can decide what goes into them, just because you created them. Canterbury Tail talk 22:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Template:Crimean Tatar Surgun era 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.

Plus you clearly know you're editing against consensus, you do not need to breach 3 reverts in 24 hours to be guilty of edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 16:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mikhail Petrovich Odintsov.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mikhail Petrovich Odintsov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.

Wikipedia references both current and old names for cities. An example is <a href=“ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin”>Stalin’s Page</a>, it clearly says he was born in the Russian Empire which is now Georgia. Same thing with the current situation, Assam was born in Akka, Mandatory Palestine, which is now Acre, Israel. Syphenta (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Syphenta: The article you cited notes that his birthplace was in the Russian Empire at the time and the place in question is part of present day Georgia. It does not do what you are trying to do and say he was born in Georgia before it existed. You are obviously a new editor and are clearly struggling with the basic formatting requirements of wikipedia. Please refrain from other major editing until otherwise, (Wikipedia:Competence is required)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox request

@PlanespotterA320:

This user wants Russia to leave Abkhazia.

This user wants Russia to leave South Ossetia.

This user wants Russia to leave Crimea.

This user is afraid that Russia is going to invade Ukraine again. Catfurball (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball: I don't make userboxes anymore. Make them yourself.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Xinjiang topics, 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. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Uyghur genocide

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Uyghur genocide. 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editwar is THREE reverts, NOT 2!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're getting confused by WP:3rr, two reverts can certainly be edit warring. Especially when the edit is not justified on the talk page. If you read the warning you would know this, see: "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;". Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on East Turkistan Government-in-Exile. 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. Please refrain from your POV terms (such as separatist and so-called). Beshogur (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Mhawk10 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for belligerently pushing genocide denialist talking points.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PlanespotterA320 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not have much opportunity to write in the admin noticeboard discussion since I was in class all morning. (Please read my comments in a <!--- --> note here I'm just too embarrassed to publish it prominently. I cannot help but note it is quite ironic that I am being blocked for my "genocide denialist" notes about an ongoing event (meaning we lack the ability to judge it well by looking at post-event sources and consensus and view long-term trends) that are largely on talkpages and edit summaries while many an editor has denied the genocidal nature of events where genocidal intent is far more obvious (being accompanied by a population plummet, apartheid-like laws, derecognition as an ethnic group, etc). I would also like to point out that the vast majority of my work in the realm of minority and CIS subjects is indisputably productive and adds to the wiki (one editwar over a hyphen does not negate years of work researching, writing, expanding, and publishing a plethora of biographies on prominent peoples of national minorities, which I cannot finish from my to-do list under a block.) Did I go too far editing some of the Xinjiang articles? Perhaps. Was I in a sleep-deprived rage that the situation in Xinjiang, envied by heavily marginalized (especially unrecognized and exiled peoples) is dubbed "genocide"? Yeah. However, most of my edits (which are over 20,000) remain to be objective improvements to the state of the wiki. Coverage of Eastern bloc aviation remains pretty bad and was absolutely abysmal before I joined wikipedia. Blocking me isn't going to help improve any of that. New Xinjiang skeptics will come and go until sufficient times passes to view these events through a historical lens, but I highly doubt anyone will bother to write the articles for Ishembai Abdraimov, Viktor Kolyadin, or Midat Selimov in English anytime soon or expand the stubs I just published (with intention of expanding them later this month, just wanting to make the wikilink not red) if I don't.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no way you are going to be unblocked to continue to edit about that topic. If that is all you are interested in doing, this is the end of the line. Accepting a topic ban from that topic is a must, and more than likely no unblock will be considered for at least six months, see the standard offer. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PlanespotterA320 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In case it wasn't clear I am accepting of a topic ban for Xinjiang and am NOT asking for an unblock to edit that topic. I'll admit that I haven't been very diplomatic about my opinions here having very irate that the use of the g-word is treated as gospel in Xinjiang matters but treated as a controversial matter in far more dire events, and have no desire to continue editing in that shitstorm. But an indef ban stopping me from improving and revising the articles I've created, creating new articles, editing my sandbox, and expanding stubs on completely different topics isn't going to improve Wikipedia's content deficiencies in the many niche areas that I am almost single-handedly responsible for improving. I have to say that I am VERY concerned about the very real risk of an incompetent editor copy-pasting machine-translated text (like this) into one of the many stub articles I've started off but not finished yet I will not even have the opportunity to improve. I have many VERY long to-do lists [1] [2][3], more than one draft in progress[4], and over 100 stubs to expand. And that's not even counting my work tracking down much-needed public domain photos for use in articles in numerous wikis, including English Wikipedia (meaning I certainly will find more PD photos to be added to articles in English Wikipedia but as long as I'm fully blocked I will be unable to add them to articles). Other note: it is worth noting that since English Wikipedia is one of the most commonly translated from wikis, and MANY of my articles have since been translated on other wikis complete with attribution via a "Translated page" tag, depriving me of the ability to edit and expand the article's I've written as well as create new ones not only harms English Wikipedia but the many other wikis that look to the content I work hard to create on English Wikipedia as a go-to source to start off their translated articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the discussion over at WP:ANI, I believe any admin who unblocked you in the next six months would have their adminship revoked. On that basis, I decline your unblock request. I think your best bet is to go six months and then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you'll need to suggest a topic ban, as you did here (though frankly, you may want to consider a substantially broader topic ban), and also address your belligerence, as this was a critical factor in your block. I'll warn you, I don't think I've ever seen someone who engaged in genocide denial unblocked. The Wikipedia community takes a very dim view of that. Yamla (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla: If genocide denial (or in this case, current-event based hesitancy to use the g-word because things can obviously get way worse ergo using it now is very premature) is grounds for an indef block...I think that will be news to a LOT of editors of other wikis who engage in blatant genocide apologetics of far clearer historic genocides (whose point isn't "There's no net population drop or derecognition as an ethnic group, so let's not use the g-word until then because if/when that happens nobody will realize the gravity of it" but "Yes, there was a huge population drop, but they deserved it/not enough were killed/assimilated"). Heck, First Nations genocide apologists still dominate the mainspace of American history articles. You may be interested to know that in the case of a genocide I have become wikipedia's subject matter go-to person on (the Surgun), the g-word wasn't even used in the first decade after a population plummet and the total ethnic cleansing from the peninsula, but only started being used by the activists in the 1960's after the notorious Ukaz 493 was made public and the confusion about the meaning died down, after which they realized they were officially not seen as a distinct ethnic group anymore and supposed to transform/assimilate into another to fit that perception. I would also like to point out that in the discussion (which I did not have the opportunity to participate in and respond to for most of due to being in class), there was hardly a strong consensus for a total block, even the nominator himself favored a topic ban, the total block seemed to be more the one admin's personal whim than a ruling out of a strong consensus. As for my beligerence on other topics, I'll admit to taking part in the occasional editwar over something very petty like a hyphen, and I'll certainly try to be less so, but that doesn't change the fact that my contributions in developing content related to national minority history has been overwhelmingly beneficial to the wiki - from expanding the biographies of numerous people (previously stubs) from Amet-khan Sultan to Fyodor Okhlopkov to publishing articles previously only available in other languages, such as Lyalya Nasukhanova and Girey Bairov. And that doesn't even include all the articles I've written related to the Crimean Tatar movement (many of them unfinished, like the Tashkent Ten article, currently only a stub, which is why I am begging for an unblock) that have yet to be translated to other languages (but I hope that if/when they are, I will have gotten to expand/finish them first). If you are refering to a broader topic ban in mind as in China or Sino-American split related articles, I can understand that, but a ban on all national minority editing would be going WAAAYYY too far, and would impair my ability to make many productive and objectively beneficial edits to numerous stub articles tagged for improvement. I would also like to express concern about the potential for some of the articles on my watchlist that I have heavily contributed to being subject to vandalism/bad edits that I will not be able to revert unless I were to stoop low enough to sockpuppeting (after all, Amet-khan Sultan's article is protected on Russian wikipedia due to being the subject of nonstop attacks from anti-Tatar nationalists). And many Night Witches articles (which I am largely responsible for expanding and creating) have been subject to unproductive edits (albeit many of them in good faith, simply with poor grammar machine-translated content added)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me, so please don't. You aren't trying to convince me, you are trying to convince the next admin who reviews your next unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: Then would you AT LEAST protect a few articles that are high-risk of vandalism when I am away (Yes I saw that note about pinging, but pages need an admin to protect them): Amet-khan Sultan (He strongly identified as Crimean Tatar, not Dagestani, having serious daddy issues after all, but paternalist revisionists in various language wikis have repeatedly tried to disrespect his right to self-identification and painted him as a Dagestani or even a Lak "contaminated" by Crimean Tatar blood); Tatarophobia - has had some very colorful (unsourced of course) edits by anti-Tatar nationalists; and Manshuk Mametova (large sections removed unilaterally).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Don't ping me again. And be warned, continued personal attacks will count against any further unblock request from you. --Yamla (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say anything about you personally in that note. I merely indicated that article protection requires admin decision (and you happen to be an admin, ergo you are capable of protecting high-risk articles). As for the rest of the comment, I was merely describing the nature of vandalism that I have witnessed to those articles (both on enwiki and others). That has nothing to do with you and I was not insinuating that you were the ip editor involved in those cases (which I highly doubt is done by one single person). This is NOT personal. This is about the greater good of wikipedia.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PlanespotterA320 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I still have a LOT of work to do here in wikipedia. I will not edit any Xinjiang-related articles, or even so much as editwar over a hypen. But there are edits that I NEED to make, such as in: * Tashkent Ten - currently a stub, which I created with the intention of expanding later * Crimean Tatar civil rights movement - same case. I even have some of the body paragraphs in progress in my sandbox * Lenur Arifov - only got started, didn't get a chance to add much * Midat Selimov - rather famous researcher * Haytarma (disambiguation) ** Haytarma (dance) ru:Хайтарма (танец) ** Haytarma (ensemble) (ru:Хайтарма (ансамбль) * 508th Fighter Aviation Regiment - just saw that this article on my to-do list is written, albeit VERY poorly (just look at the notable members list - some people are listed as surname-givenname-patronymic, others by givenname-patronymic-surname, with no consistency about it) * Valery Kuzmin - never got around to expanding this one * Boris Glinka - same thing * Vasily Pavlov (test pilot) - been meaning to do this article for YEARS * cleanup List of Heroes of the Soviet Union (K) - remove interlanguage links for ones with articles, change link names of ones where link is of wrong person of similar name * Nikolai Goryushkin - stub I missed in the twice Heroes list * Aleksandr Rodimtsev - borderline stub, but needs to be MUCH longer * Soviet Korean war pilots (bought a book JUST FOR this kind of article and haven't gotten around to citing it much yet): ** Konstantin Sheberstov ** Grigory Pulov ** Serafim Subbotin ** Anatoly Karelin ** Boris Siskov *Photographers: ** Olga Lander ** Olga Ignatovich ** Natalya Bode ** Vasily Malyshev ** Naum Granovsky ** Boris Vdovenko ** Pavel Troshkin ** Georgy Zelma *Snipers ** Nikolai Galushkin ** Nikolai Ilyin (sniper) ** Ivan Kulbertinov ** Mikhail Burdenkov ** Pyotr Goncharov ** Tuleugali Abdybekov ** Vera Artamonovna ** Mariya Zubchenko ** Nina Belobrova ...and many, many more redlinked, stub, and badly written (machine-translation style) articles. Even the editor who NOMINATED me for the discussion (which I barely got to participate in) acknowledged that I do good work in this area. It isn't exactly a secret that there are many parts of wikipedia that will fall apart without my edit support (getting mass filled with unedited machine-translated nonsense, whilst I won't even have an opportunity to do fixes). I am even open to a very limited unblock just limited to my userpage and sandboxes so that I can provide resources (userpage updating the list of books and publications I have and am willing to do "page checks" for users research, and my sandbox for drafting of articles/article expansions for uncontroversial users to vet and republish).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Does not address the reason for the block, and no one needs to edit Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Canterbury Tail: Did you not see the part about "I will not edit any Xinjiang-related articles, or even so much as editwar over a hypen" and "I am even open to a very limited unblock" because you wrote that I did "not address the reason for the block" (very contrary to all that I have written on my talkpage acknowledging that the edits that I made that led to the block were not good.)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't miss it. You said what you wouldn't do, but you didn't actually address your edits and behaviour, why they are not acceptable, that lead to the institution of the block. You just said you would avoid a specific area and attempted to bargain which ignores and glosses over the actual reason for the block. For your behaviour, concerns from many members of the community, and the specific reasons for your block you will need to specifically address that. Just trying to bargain by saying you'll avoid something will not get you unblocked. You need to address all of your behavioural issues, show the community that you understand why they are not acceptable, and specify what you will do and how you will change to ensure that this kind of behaviour never happens again. Canterbury Tail talk 17:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you sent me an email. I will not be responding to that email and nothing you have said in it will be taken into consideration here (if I were to take it into consideration you should be outright banned and have all talk and email privileges removed for the contents of it as its clear you don't see Wikipedia as a collaborative project.) Unless you're willing to discuss it properly and make your case here nothing is going to be gained from sending such emails. And if you don't want the contents of emails to be made public and discussed, you shouldn't send them. Canterbury Tail talk 19:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail: I find it offensive that you think I do not see Wikipedia as a collaborative project. I literally have collaborated with more people than I can count in order to produce the articles I have - sharing book lists, publishing public domain magazine pages on social media, offering to help adopt newbies, making lists of needed articles, inviting people to different task forces (I literally founded an entire task force to get people to collaborate to develop content on subjects desperately needing translation from other wikipedias), offering barnstars as reward for creating a certain number of articles on a list, etc. I do not hesitate to ask subject-matter experts (or even amateurs) for their opinion on things when drafting articles on something I am less familiar with. Perhaps I've grown a bit too paranoid from my experiences in another Wikipedia, and I readily admit that the edits I made to the Xinjiang articles and templates were out of line and that I went way too far there. I should have kept my edits limited to talkpage comments, and like I have said before, if/when I get unblocked, I will not edit Xinjiang-related articles at all, not even update a page about a regional airport. I just want to go back to being a good editor again - I miss writing articles from my lists that I always dreamed of completing one day and hate drafting articles in a word document or alternative sandbox. I'm under the impression nothing I write will change your opinion, as you seem to have already made up your mind, but nevertheless I apologize for my past behavior of aggressive edits here, which will not happen again, and I am asking for permission to return so I can improve the content on some of the least covered subjects that will likely never be written about anytime soon if I am not given a chance to write them. And the concern about vandalism so some of the articles I've created or heavily contributed to is a real thing, several of such articles have been vandalized quite viciously by bad-faith editors, and every day that I remain blocked I worry so much about them. I'm not bargaining here, I'm begging for another chance, I know those edits I made to Xinjiang articles were not good and my comments in my fit of rage were not good either and it's understandable why the average person looks down at them, but I am begging for a chance to clean up this mess and become a good editor again. The niche sections of wikipedia (re: biographies of Soviet pilots and other things where information is typically not available in English) should not be left to rot because I have a bad edit history in a completely different subject matter. I would still like to note that I wish I could have responded to the questions in most of the discussion (which I did not get the opportunity to since I was in class at the time) so I could have handled it better then and I would like to point out that many editors in the block discussion, including the nominator themself, expressed desire that I still be allowed to edit non-Xinjiang articles, which should be taken into consideration here if anywhere. I have been very tempted to resort to sockpuppetry to make some uncontroversial edits to various articles containing huge and obvious errors in formatting and writing conventions (something fairly common in the kind of articles I deal with that are often written by non-English speakers), but have not done so out of knowing it would hurt my reputation as an editor forever and hurt my chances of getting unblocked.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are free, as always, to make another unblock request. A different admin will review it, not I or any of the previous reviewers. However if you wish it to stand any chance of success you need to directly address the issues behind the blocking reason, and the concerns that were on the ANI discussion, otherwise it will not be successful. This is not about you needing to fix articles or having done good work, it’s about addressing the issues that the community has found unacceptable. I wish you the best. Canterbury Tail talk 23:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail: So you brought me up in a discussion board that I can't even comment in. You completely falsely painted me as failing to acknowledge that what I did was wrong (even though I did! I will be putting that text in bold for your convenience now.) and are demanding "action" on my talkpage too. I reserve the right to point out examples of blatant vandalism that have been unaddressed (which I could have easily taken care of long ago if I were not blocked) and merely pointing out that such block only enables the persistent vandalism of the articles I used to attend to (which I have repeatedly requested protection of and been denied) - which in turn hurts the bottom line of the encyclopedia and ends up incentivizing me to sockpuppet. I haven't created a sockpuppet, I was only remarking that it gets ever more tempting the more and more I see such IP trolls blatantly mess up so mary articles I worked so hard on whilst I am left powerless to stop them. I'm allowed to use strong words like "need to edit" to describe my passion for editing, and given how such vandalism continues to go unaddressed (as obvious by your greater concern about my talkpage comments than the vandalism itself), it's clear that Wikipedia needs me to monitor and defend the many niche Soviet aviation articles with nobody looking after them. And please watch your attitude.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now you complained non said board that I posted that comment in response to you. It's a shame that you have devoted more of your time to repeatedly complaining about me on a discussion board but won't even bother to extend the courtesy of reverting the vandalism that I have pointed out on multiple occasions. Considering your lack of willingness to revert vandalism pointed out to you, I think I have inadvertently ended up further making my case that I am needed to protect the articles on my watchlist (which I still check religiously for vandalism despite being blocked) from vandalism - and indifference to it from other editors.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

PlanespotterA320 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I appeal my block that was the result of a discussion I had almost no opportunity to comment in (since I was in school the morning when most of the deliberation happened) and hardly had firm consensus (many in support of a topic ban limited to Uyghur and Xinjiang related articles). I fully acknowledge that my behavior and edits in Xinjiang-related articles was quite inappropriate and unproductive, and I have no intention of editing belligerently like that ever again. Not on Xinjiang, not even over a hypen. I should not have used Uyghur articles, or anything on Wikipedia as an outlet for keyboard warrior mindset. Ever since being blocked, I have missed many opportunities to make uncontroversial, positive contributions to Wikipedia. Even the editor who filed the block acknowledged that my work in other subject matters which I have put a lot of effort into (Soviet milhist) has been positive and didn't express desire for me to be blocked from editing those kind of articles. I also would like to note that the grounds of "Genocide denialist bullshit wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else, and it shouldn't be here." is not particularly strong here (considering the plethora of 1st nations genocide deniers here, but I digress) - and I NEVER said there was NO repression or discrimination in Xinjiang; it probably wasn't very obvious in my emotional and poorly worded rant - but my hesitancy to use the g-word is heavily out of concern that it is premature (things are capable of getting worse and it's more appropriate to use it if/when it does). Looking at a Crimean timeline for comparison, people thought 1937 was devastating at the time (purges of writers and other intelligentsia), but once 18 May 1944 happened, the repressions of 1937 were largely forgotten, and right now the repressions in Xinjiang are far more on par with/comparable to those 1937-38 than 1944 of which the g-word was eventually invoked to describe the latter). Nevertheless, I will not attempt to justify my comments that made others go "yikes", they were out of line, and I will not repeat them; I am asking for a second chance so that I can make uncontroversial, positive contributions to the encyclopedia. If allowed back, I will not edit any Xinjiang-related article, I will use my second chance to be a positive contributor to this community, fixing problems in the wiki that I have already identified but been unable to fix due to the block (such as removing Grigory Okhay from the Soviet WWII aces category because he did not have 5 confirmed shootdowns in WWII, fixing the mess that is the article about the 508th Fighter Aviation Regiment, expanding many stubs on my to-do list from Grigory Pulov to the Tashkent Ten). I am not a "Wumao" or other kind of opinion-for-hire and am appaled by the accusation in the block discussion; I have been an active editor for many years (well before Xinjiang had the media attention) with the vast, vast, vast majority of my edits being uncontroversial and even celebrated (I was awarded the editor-of-the-week award for my work creating and expanding articles, which sadly very few editors do these days). Less than 1% of my edits are related to China in any way, most of the work I do here is related to the Soviet Union, aviation, or a combination of those things (It's not exactly a secret I've been on a mission to develop and promote English-language content on matters which have poor English-language coverage if any at all, Soviet aviation being one of those niche things). And I am concerned about the very real risk of vandalism for some of the articles that I have created and edited that have been vandalized before. Please seriously consider my appeal and give me the opportunity to be a good editor again. I am not opposed in any way to a limited block/topic ban, but please give me the opportunity to expand the stubs I have started off with intention of finishing later and build new articles on my usual niche topics with uncontroversial content, you will not regret it, and there is nothing to lose from letting me edit those kinds of articles for the better. There is a LOT of "mythbusting" to do around here - just read some of the biographies of Korean War pilots that don't mention the high rate of overclaiming or include disclaimers about some of the "aces". (I've even been drafting a special pre-made footnote explaining the Korean War's high rate of overclaiming that I hope to include in all such "ace" articles). I can't say it enough, but there is NOTHING to lose from letting me edit aviation articles and others that are within my purview.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Update: the article about Yekaterina Zelenko has been vandalized by an IP editor who radically changed the lead in direct contradiction to information cited in the article (her 1941 HSU award nomination did NOT say anything about a ramming, so it was not "documented", all just postwar speculation many decades later.) Stuff like this is why I need to edit wikipedia and why wikipedia needs me - I could have reverted that IP vandalism long ago this morning, but because I am blocked it is still up, misleading many readers. I hope I don't have to resort to recruiting new editors just to look after my articles, or worse, go as low as sockpuppeting just to protect the articles I've put so much work into just to revert vandalism that nobody else seems remotely willing to address.[reply]

Update 2: I've even made a list of edits I intend to do ASAP when unblocked. It's not exactly controversial material.

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I appeal my block that was the result of a discussion I had almost no opportunity to comment in (since I was in school the morning when most of the deliberation happened) and hardly had firm consensus (many in support of a topic ban limited to Uyghur and Xinjiang related articles). '''I fully acknowledge that my behavior and edits in Xinjiang-related articles was quite inappropriate and unproductive, and I have no intention of editing belligerently like that ever again. Not on Xinjiang, not even over a hypen. I should not have used Uyghur articles, or anything on Wikipedia as an outlet for keyboard warrior mindset.''' Ever since being blocked, I have missed many opportunities to make uncontroversial, positive contributions to Wikipedia. Even the editor who filed the block acknowledged that my work in other subject matters which I have put a lot of effort into (Soviet milhist) has been positive and didn't express desire for me to be blocked from editing those kind of articles. I also would like to note that the grounds of "Genocide denialist bullshit wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else, and it shouldn't be here." is not particularly strong here (considering the plethora of 1st nations genocide deniers here, but I digress) - and I NEVER said there was NO repression or discrimination in Xinjiang; it probably wasn't very obvious in my emotional and poorly worded rant - but my hesitancy to use the g-word is ''heavily'' out of concern that it is ''premature'' (things are capable of getting worse and it's more appropriate to use it if/when it does). Looking at a Crimean timeline for comparison, people thought 1937 was devastating at the time (purges of writers and other intelligentsia), but once 18 May 1944 happened, the repressions of 1937 were largely forgotten, and right now the repressions in Xinjiang are far more on par with/comparable to those 1937-38 than 1944 of which the g-word was eventually invoked to describe the latter). Nevertheless, I will not attempt to justify my comments that made others go "yikes", '''they were out of line, and I will not repeat them'''; ''I am asking for a second chance so that I can make uncontroversial, positive contributions to the encyclopedia''. If allowed back, I will not edit any Xinjiang-related article, I will use my second chance to be a positive contributor to this community, fixing problems in the wiki that I have already identified but been unable to fix due to the block (such as removing [[Grigory Okhay]] from the Soviet WWII aces category because he did not have 5 confirmed shootdowns in WWII, fixing the mess that is the article about the [[508th Fighter Aviation Regiment]], expanding many stubs on my to-do list from [[Grigory Pulov]] to the [[Tashkent Ten]]). I am not a "Wumao" or other kind of opinion-for-hire and am appaled by the accusation in the block discussion; I have been an active editor for many years (well before Xinjiang had the media attention) with the vast, vast, vast majority of my edits being uncontroversial and even celebrated (I was awarded the editor-of-the-week award for my work creating and expanding articles, which sadly very few editors do these days). Less than 1% of my edits are related to China in any way, most of the work I do here is related to the Soviet Union, aviation, or a combination of those things (It's not exactly a secret I've been on a mission to develop and promote English-language content on matters which have poor English-language coverage if any at all, Soviet aviation being one of those niche things). And I am concerned about the very real risk of vandalism for some of the articles that I have created and edited that have been vandalized before. Please seriously consider my appeal and give me the opportunity to be a good editor again. I am not opposed in any way to a limited block/topic ban, but please give me the opportunity to expand the stubs I have started off with intention of finishing later and build new articles on my usual niche topics with uncontroversial content, you will not regret it, and there is nothing to lose from letting me edit those kinds of articles for the better. There is a LOT of "mythbusting" to do around here - just read some of the biographies of Korean War pilots that don't mention the high rate of overclaiming or include disclaimers about some of the "aces". (I've even been drafting a special pre-made footnote explaining the Korean War's high rate of overclaiming that I hope to include in all such "ace" articles). I can't say it enough, but there is NOTHING to lose from letting me edit aviation articles and others that are within my purview.--[[User:PlanespotterA320|PlanespotterA320]] ([[User talk:PlanespotterA320#top|talk]]) 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Update: the article about [[Yekaterina Zelenko]] has been vandalized by an IP editor who radically changed the lead in direct contradiction to information cited in the article (her 1941 HSU award nomination did NOT say anything about a ramming, so it was not "documented", all just postwar speculation many decades later.) Stuff like this is why I need to edit wikipedia and why wikipedia needs me - I could have reverted that IP vandalism long ago this morning, but because I am blocked it is still up, misleading many readers. I hope I don't have to resort to recruiting new editors just to look after my articles, or worse, go as low as sockpuppeting just to protect the articles I've put so much work into just to revert vandalism that nobody else seems remotely willing to address. Update 2: I've even made [[:simple:User:PlanespotterA320/sandbox2|a list of edits]] I intend to do ASAP when unblocked. It's not exactly controversial material. --[[User:PlanespotterA320|PlanespotterA320]] ([[User talk:PlanespotterA320#top|talk]]) 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I appeal my block that was the result of a discussion I had almost no opportunity to comment in (since I was in school the morning when most of the deliberation happened) and hardly had firm consensus (many in support of a topic ban limited to Uyghur and Xinjiang related articles). '''I fully acknowledge that my behavior and edits in Xinjiang-related articles was quite inappropriate and unproductive, and I have no intention of editing belligerently like that ever again. Not on Xinjiang, not even over a hypen. I should not have used Uyghur articles, or anything on Wikipedia as an outlet for keyboard warrior mindset.''' Ever since being blocked, I have missed many opportunities to make uncontroversial, positive contributions to Wikipedia. Even the editor who filed the block acknowledged that my work in other subject matters which I have put a lot of effort into (Soviet milhist) has been positive and didn't express desire for me to be blocked from editing those kind of articles. I also would like to note that the grounds of "Genocide denialist bullshit wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else, and it shouldn't be here." is not particularly strong here (considering the plethora of 1st nations genocide deniers here, but I digress) - and I NEVER said there was NO repression or discrimination in Xinjiang; it probably wasn't very obvious in my emotional and poorly worded rant - but my hesitancy to use the g-word is ''heavily'' out of concern that it is ''premature'' (things are capable of getting worse and it's more appropriate to use it if/when it does). Looking at a Crimean timeline for comparison, people thought 1937 was devastating at the time (purges of writers and other intelligentsia), but once 18 May 1944 happened, the repressions of 1937 were largely forgotten, and right now the repressions in Xinjiang are far more on par with/comparable to those 1937-38 than 1944 of which the g-word was eventually invoked to describe the latter). Nevertheless, I will not attempt to justify my comments that made others go "yikes", '''they were out of line, and I will not repeat them'''; ''I am asking for a second chance so that I can make uncontroversial, positive contributions to the encyclopedia''. If allowed back, I will not edit any Xinjiang-related article, I will use my second chance to be a positive contributor to this community, fixing problems in the wiki that I have already identified but been unable to fix due to the block (such as removing [[Grigory Okhay]] from the Soviet WWII aces category because he did not have 5 confirmed shootdowns in WWII, fixing the mess that is the article about the [[508th Fighter Aviation Regiment]], expanding many stubs on my to-do list from [[Grigory Pulov]] to the [[Tashkent Ten]]). I am not a "Wumao" or other kind of opinion-for-hire and am appaled by the accusation in the block discussion; I have been an active editor for many years (well before Xinjiang had the media attention) with the vast, vast, vast majority of my edits being uncontroversial and even celebrated (I was awarded the editor-of-the-week award for my work creating and expanding articles, which sadly very few editors do these days). Less than 1% of my edits are related to China in any way, most of the work I do here is related to the Soviet Union, aviation, or a combination of those things (It's not exactly a secret I've been on a mission to develop and promote English-language content on matters which have poor English-language coverage if any at all, Soviet aviation being one of those niche things). And I am concerned about the very real risk of vandalism for some of the articles that I have created and edited that have been vandalized before. Please seriously consider my appeal and give me the opportunity to be a good editor again. I am not opposed in any way to a limited block/topic ban, but please give me the opportunity to expand the stubs I have started off with intention of finishing later and build new articles on my usual niche topics with uncontroversial content, you will not regret it, and there is nothing to lose from letting me edit those kinds of articles for the better. There is a LOT of "mythbusting" to do around here - just read some of the biographies of Korean War pilots that don't mention the high rate of overclaiming or include disclaimers about some of the "aces". (I've even been drafting a special pre-made footnote explaining the Korean War's high rate of overclaiming that I hope to include in all such "ace" articles). I can't say it enough, but there is NOTHING to lose from letting me edit aviation articles and others that are within my purview.--[[User:PlanespotterA320|PlanespotterA320]] ([[User talk:PlanespotterA320#top|talk]]) 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Update: the article about [[Yekaterina Zelenko]] has been vandalized by an IP editor who radically changed the lead in direct contradiction to information cited in the article (her 1941 HSU award nomination did NOT say anything about a ramming, so it was not "documented", all just postwar speculation many decades later.) Stuff like this is why I need to edit wikipedia and why wikipedia needs me - I could have reverted that IP vandalism long ago this morning, but because I am blocked it is still up, misleading many readers. I hope I don't have to resort to recruiting new editors just to look after my articles, or worse, go as low as sockpuppeting just to protect the articles I've put so much work into just to revert vandalism that nobody else seems remotely willing to address. Update 2: I've even made [[:simple:User:PlanespotterA320/sandbox2|a list of edits]] I intend to do ASAP when unblocked. It's not exactly controversial material. --[[User:PlanespotterA320|PlanespotterA320]] ([[User talk:PlanespotterA320#top|talk]]) 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I appeal my block that was the result of a discussion I had almost no opportunity to comment in (since I was in school the morning when most of the deliberation happened) and hardly had firm consensus (many in support of a topic ban limited to Uyghur and Xinjiang related articles). '''I fully acknowledge that my behavior and edits in Xinjiang-related articles was quite inappropriate and unproductive, and I have no intention of editing belligerently like that ever again. Not on Xinjiang, not even over a hypen. I should not have used Uyghur articles, or anything on Wikipedia as an outlet for keyboard warrior mindset.''' Ever since being blocked, I have missed many opportunities to make uncontroversial, positive contributions to Wikipedia. Even the editor who filed the block acknowledged that my work in other subject matters which I have put a lot of effort into (Soviet milhist) has been positive and didn't express desire for me to be blocked from editing those kind of articles. I also would like to note that the grounds of "Genocide denialist bullshit wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else, and it shouldn't be here." is not particularly strong here (considering the plethora of 1st nations genocide deniers here, but I digress) - and I NEVER said there was NO repression or discrimination in Xinjiang; it probably wasn't very obvious in my emotional and poorly worded rant - but my hesitancy to use the g-word is ''heavily'' out of concern that it is ''premature'' (things are capable of getting worse and it's more appropriate to use it if/when it does). Looking at a Crimean timeline for comparison, people thought 1937 was devastating at the time (purges of writers and other intelligentsia), but once 18 May 1944 happened, the repressions of 1937 were largely forgotten, and right now the repressions in Xinjiang are far more on par with/comparable to those 1937-38 than 1944 of which the g-word was eventually invoked to describe the latter). Nevertheless, I will not attempt to justify my comments that made others go "yikes", '''they were out of line, and I will not repeat them'''; ''I am asking for a second chance so that I can make uncontroversial, positive contributions to the encyclopedia''. If allowed back, I will not edit any Xinjiang-related article, I will use my second chance to be a positive contributor to this community, fixing problems in the wiki that I have already identified but been unable to fix due to the block (such as removing [[Grigory Okhay]] from the Soviet WWII aces category because he did not have 5 confirmed shootdowns in WWII, fixing the mess that is the article about the [[508th Fighter Aviation Regiment]], expanding many stubs on my to-do list from [[Grigory Pulov]] to the [[Tashkent Ten]]). I am not a "Wumao" or other kind of opinion-for-hire and am appaled by the accusation in the block discussion; I have been an active editor for many years (well before Xinjiang had the media attention) with the vast, vast, vast majority of my edits being uncontroversial and even celebrated (I was awarded the editor-of-the-week award for my work creating and expanding articles, which sadly very few editors do these days). Less than 1% of my edits are related to China in any way, most of the work I do here is related to the Soviet Union, aviation, or a combination of those things (It's not exactly a secret I've been on a mission to develop and promote English-language content on matters which have poor English-language coverage if any at all, Soviet aviation being one of those niche things). And I am concerned about the very real risk of vandalism for some of the articles that I have created and edited that have been vandalized before. Please seriously consider my appeal and give me the opportunity to be a good editor again. I am not opposed in any way to a limited block/topic ban, but please give me the opportunity to expand the stubs I have started off with intention of finishing later and build new articles on my usual niche topics with uncontroversial content, you will not regret it, and there is nothing to lose from letting me edit those kinds of articles for the better. There is a LOT of "mythbusting" to do around here - just read some of the biographies of Korean War pilots that don't mention the high rate of overclaiming or include disclaimers about some of the "aces". (I've even been drafting a special pre-made footnote explaining the Korean War's high rate of overclaiming that I hope to include in all such "ace" articles). I can't say it enough, but there is NOTHING to lose from letting me edit aviation articles and others that are within my purview.--[[User:PlanespotterA320|PlanespotterA320]] ([[User talk:PlanespotterA320#top|talk]]) 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Update: the article about [[Yekaterina Zelenko]] has been vandalized by an IP editor who radically changed the lead in direct contradiction to information cited in the article (her 1941 HSU award nomination did NOT say anything about a ramming, so it was not "documented", all just postwar speculation many decades later.) Stuff like this is why I need to edit wikipedia and why wikipedia needs me - I could have reverted that IP vandalism long ago this morning, but because I am blocked it is still up, misleading many readers. I hope I don't have to resort to recruiting new editors just to look after my articles, or worse, go as low as sockpuppeting just to protect the articles I've put so much work into just to revert vandalism that nobody else seems remotely willing to address. Update 2: I've even made [[:simple:User:PlanespotterA320/sandbox2|a list of edits]] I intend to do ASAP when unblocked. It's not exactly controversial material. --[[User:PlanespotterA320|PlanespotterA320]] ([[User talk:PlanespotterA320#top|talk]]) 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PlanespotterA320&oldid=1075059808"