This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
IP, I assume
this is your source for the Liptak PAL. Aside from not being a
reliable source, it states the Liptak PAL was a pre-war concept that was not pursued by the military. Unless you have another source, please refrain from replacing it onto the page.
Cavalryman V31 (
talk)
20:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC).reply
IP, please address my concerns with the inclusion of the Liptak PAL, the source you have provided does not meet Wikipedia’s standards and further does not even say this was produced during or service in the war. If not it will be removed again.
Cavalryman V31 (
talk)
03:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC).reply
"....not being a reliable source...." we didn't asked you if it's being a reliable source!
your "sources" are not "reliable" either!
by the way you are completely wrong, sources are everything, and the landships site is a reliable source as the tanks-encyclopedia site and not as wikipedia that has nothing and steals it all from others and just shows a source afterwards!
"....was a pre-war concept that was not pursued by the military" "....does not even say this was produced during or service in the war" are your eyes distorted when you "read" a text or what?! it writes the concept was rejected 'before the war' and the prototype was rejected 'during the war' so it was still world war one (damn it!)
even your own words betrayed your own self!
"unless you have another source,...." you want too much for your own self!
also doesn't need another source because the thread explains exactly where the sources are from!
"....address my concerns...." who do you "think" you are?! "address" your ambitions your own self!
"....does not meet Wikipedia's standards...." does not "meet" your ambitions "standards" you mean!
"if not it will be removed again" that was a threat?! those threats don't play to us!
and find or make sources your own self and don't expect it all from others, they are not your slaves after all!
IP, I do not make the rules, but
verifiability is one of the central pillars of Wikipedia. I suggest you read some of the links for new editors that have been posted on
your talk page. As to the Liptak PAL, currently nothing you have shown is either a reliable source nor emphatic that the vehicle was still in use during the war.
Cavalryman V31 (
talk)
10:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC).reply
IP, I have removed the Liptak PAL again, if you can find a reliable source to support its inclusion I will gladly support its reintroduction.
Cavalryman V31 (
talk)
22:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)reply
IP, the forum discussion you cite as a source states of its source for the Liptak PAL “a number of inaccuracies and suspicious things made me think about the incompetence of the author and the credibility of his text”. This is not reliably sourced.
Cavalryman V31 (
talk)
23:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC).reply
As for that IP...
With 85.75.87.100/21, it goes back to 11 April 2018. I am going to block that range for a good long while. I also just blocked 94.65.156.214. Y'all let me or another admin know if this continues: I'm sure you've had it up to here with this disrupter.
Drmies (
talk)
18:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
No apology needed, Cavalryman--it's all good. IP, you have been doing this for years; you still haven't learned. We are long past the point where we judge "good faith"--by now, whether your faith is good or bad is irrelevant: you are simply disruptive. I suppose I'm happy that you have started providing edit summaries, but there remains the matter of sourcing; as far as I can tell you still don't abide by our guidelines and policies for reliable sources. If you did, you wouldn't be offering
this, whatever the hell that is, as evidence of something.
Drmies (
talk)
16:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I blocked a small range associated with this IP; they've been doing it from there since July. IP, I fail to understand how you think any of your stuff will over stick. Oh, that sock y'all noted earlier, now blocked by
User:NinjaRobotPirate, there's something interesting about it. In the meantime,
Cavalryman, I can't remember if we talked about editors and SPIs before, but an SPI for that "guest" account might be helpful, even if it's pro forma.
Drmies (
talk)
16:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:RS sets out what counts as a reliable source. Discussions within forums are not considered so, and shouldn't be quoted as such. If a forum post says "X is Y according to such-and-such-book" then the source cited in the article for X =Y should be the book not the forum.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
05:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree fully. Although further, there needs to be sufficient information to provide (or obtain elsewhere) full bibliographic information so as to ensure the citation is
WP:Verifiable. Additionally, if said forum discussion includes statements like “a number of inaccuracies and suspicious things made me think about the incompetence of the author and the credibility of his text”, it should not be used.
Cavalryman V31 (
talk)
00:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC).reply
Thanks
AngusWOOF, that is extraordinary, they have copied all of the entries and the citations from here (jigging the format somewhat) and added all of the vehicles that are consistently being re-added (despite considerable discussion above) by the a repeatedly banned IP abuser. I might request a checkuser of
0guests0 (
talk·contribs).
Cavalryman (
talk)
20:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC).reply
Hello
2noname2 (
talk·contribs), as I explained to you on your talk page, per
WP:REDNOT we try not to create redlinks to subjects that are unlikely to warrant their own articles, most of the entries you have given redlinks to barely have sufficient sources to be included here as a mention. As far as I can tell prior your additions there was only one redlink already on the page, I would support its removal.
Cavalryman (
talk)
22:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC).reply