Jump to content

Talk:List of combat vehicles of World War I

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

Inclusion of trains

[edit]

I propose removing the armoured trains section for the following reasons:

  • the current list is hopelessly inadequate and is just the two entries included of the Landships webpage
  • throughout the wad trains were often armoured for a task or campaign then had their armour removed and returned to “training”
  • railway artillery should realistically be included if trains are retained and they are well covered elsewhere

What are people’s thoughts? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

"the current list is hopelessly inadequate...." to your imagination is "hopelessly" "inadequate"
"....is just the two entries...." because they are unique of their type and doesn't need too much
"what are people's thoughts?" what a hypocritism, now you "care" about people's thoughts?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.83.68 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have found another source so have expanded the section. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Liptak PAL

[edit]

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!
we have it up to here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.83.68 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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...

[edit]

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]

Drmies, making contact as requested, our same friend has returned under a new IP (85.72.101.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and has continued their campaign by inserting their same unsourced content. All of this content has been discussed at length above. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Cavalryman; 85.72.100.0/23 is now blocked also. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to roll them all back, saying "longterm disruption: unverified edits.See also Talk:List_of_combat_vehicles_of_World_War_I#As_for_that_IP..."--but it seems my rollback is broken. So please revert as you see fit. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Drmies: Hey Drmies, do you think you could range block the /64 of the last IP you blocked over this issue? See Special:Contributions/2A02:2149:87A4:1D00:1468:1BEB:BE71:29D9/64. Thanks! Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Drmies (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Thank you! Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Drmies: one more: Special:Contributions/212.251.7.112. Thank you in advance. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Drmies, one more (94.65.156.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Cavalryman "one more" what are you trying to show?

just added an SPG entry and cleared some to the talk page list because they are already included to the main list

and instead of you saying a thanks you report without no reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.156.212 (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies how do you judge this edit was it a good faith edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.156.212 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 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]
  • Cavalryman, considering starting an SPI for Executioners (talk · contribs), who is a perfect match with "guest". That they managed to find their password after seven years is a true Christmas miracle. 331dot, I believe this may answer a question you asked earlier. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, thank you very much. I was mid-way through drafting an SPI when I noticed NinjaRobotPirate had already banned 0guests0 (talk · contribs), the parallels between this IP user’s language and behaviour and that of Executioners (talk · contribs) is apparent. If you would like I am happy to submit an SPI. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

On the subject of reliable sources and forums

[edit]

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]

Another draft

[edit]

Potential content fork at Draft:List of ground battle vehicles of world war one which I declined. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 17 December 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]
[edit]

all will have red links or no one will have red links and not only the British — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2noname2 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 January 2021 (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]
Another problem is in ending up inventing article names for these vehicles, on which sources are sketchy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_combat_vehicles_of_World_War_I&oldid=1207751738"