Jump to content

Talk:BTR-40

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

untitled

[edit]

I'd add:

Trekphiler 16:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ibid.
  2. ^ ibid.
  3. ^ ibid.
  4. ^ ibid.
  5. ^ ibid.

Self-published sources

[edit]

References to 'JED' should be removed; it is not a reliable source DMorpheus (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done DMorpheus (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A source is true unless proved otherwise. Every source can be called unreliable. Besides many of the variants, operators etc. on JED are backed by photographic evidence. Unless you're paranoid you can't seriously doubt that source unless you have a strong counter source. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, please review wikipedia policy. A source must meet some standards to be considered reliable. The burden is on the editor who posts content to citeit, not on the editor who removes it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What wikipedia policy says about so called "reliable" sources is basically this: as long as the source is supported by a group of people and is published than it is reliable. Well sorry for breaking your vision of a flawless world but nowadays you can publish anything as long as you've got the money and what you're publishing isn't uncomfortable for anyone powerful even if it is a complete BS (for example some politicians say a lot of BS in public, they say it on TV and they publish books with that BS). Meanwhile the self-published sources aren't censored like that. So as you can see it evens up. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about "my vision" it is about wikipedia policy. See this policy about self-published sources for example. Your reasoning is simply bizarre. DMorpheus (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your isn't? Your reasoning is that every source is either good or bad and there's nothing in between. And BTW you're the one believing every word of the Wikipedia policies and not even considering that they aren't absolute. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to change the policies, great, go for it. But have the guts to really challenge them and improve them if that's what you believe. In the meantime, here in this article, we need to follow them. DMorpheus (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to fight for acknowledgment of the fact that Wikipedia policies aren't absolute. After all it is stated in the fifth of the Wikipedia:Five pillars: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Also what are you going to do about that photographic evidence I mentioned earlier? - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another wonderfully pointless Wikipedia pissing match! Ain't "knowledge" by consensus grand?172.190.138.53 (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BTR-40. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BTR-40. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BTR-40. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SIPRI

[edit]

The current operators section was sourced largely to the SIPRI database - there is a major problem with using this reference for this purpose, however - the source does not state whether any type is still operated, merely the numbers that have been delivered at some stage - can someone supply a recent reliable source saying what countries operate the type now, otherwise, the distinction between current and previous operators should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operators

[edit]

For some reason uncited entries keep being added to the operator list, making it an incoherent mess. I reverted this section back to when all the entries were correctly sourced. Please mind the editing notice which states that uncited entries should not be added. Katangais (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BTR-40&oldid=1212780812"