User talk:178.155.64.69

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Pilaz (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please attribute quotes

Hello,

In the future, consider adding the names of the authors you are quoting from within the text. Every author comes with their expertise and their biases and limitations, so it's important to let the reader know who the quote belongs to. A footnote is still required, although it's not enough in itself. See: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and MOS:QUOTEPOV. Pilaz (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Dewritech. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Crimean War, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dewritech (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. FDW777 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONUS and wp:consensus, you are supposed to make a case at talk as to why your edits are justified.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

completely agree that the topic of the exact date of the beginning of the war is important. I ask you to participate in it. But don't just erase texts.178.155.64.69 (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue with you-to fight. Write yourself the date you want. 178.155.64.69 (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to get consensus by making a case at talk, not edit warring. In addition, you seem to be repteaing errors you have been told about months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat - I don't want to argue with you. Write yourself what you think is necessary. But I don't want to argue with you. You may have noticed that I have removed the text with the date of the beginning of the war from the Marriott.178.155.64.69 (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And your new text seems very poorly written. How many dies in the "massacre" for example? Also the casualties do not match those in the article, so is this in fact a quote?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? Delete again? Well, you can do that. I noticed that.178.155.64.69 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, read the author of Badem. I took a quote from him, the book is available.178.155.64.69 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a quote, you are supposed to attribute quotes, as you have been told, more than once.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why when YOU are reverted YOU need to make a case at talk, so people can tell you what you are doing wrong, and try and find a way to fix it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not pretend to pay special attention to me, but if you are interested, the local authorities before that constantly demanded from me not to give exact quotes. Do you demand exact quotes on the contrary? It's even a little funny.178.155.64.69 (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? What "local authority", what are you talking about? If you mean other editors, not they did not say that they said what I just have, you must attribute any quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat, some people here reproach me for one thing, you reproach me for another, which is the opposite. I can't please everyone.178.155.64.69 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are being reproached for the same thing, is English not your first language?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Russia. I repeat, I do not claim special attention to me. But if you read the "talk" page, you will see that so far there have been complaints that I give accurate quotes. Perhaps you can explain to these people that they were wrong. 178.155.64.69 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not what you were told (and I quote FDW777) "The following sentences are currently whast appear to be direct quotes from references that appear as unattributed quotes in the prose.", you were not told they were "accurate quotes" you were told they were unattributed. So this is now at the stage of wp:tenditious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... When Badem writes that "British exports for the period 1840-1851"grew 3 times " - is this prose? Well, of course, it's not poetry. But I think that important information is given there. Of course, I don't want to impose my opinion on anyone. I'm from Russia and it's not even my business to edit english Wikipedia. I'm just giving my opinion. No more, especially since this topic also concerns Russia.178.155.64.69 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any grounds for reproaches against me. After all, every quote has an exact reference to the author, the Turk Badem, the Englishman Marriott or the Russian Vinogradov. 178.155.64.69 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read our policies and what people are saying you would know why. You are not writing text how we require it to be written.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I really don't understand. I even asked one person who also reproached me to give an example, to do an example of editing once. As he wants. To make it clear. Unfortunately, he didn't do that. Maybe you will? Believe me, I'm not trying to impose my opinion at all. I don't write much on Wikipedia at all, especially in English. I am most interested in the 19th century and the events that are connected with Russia. I don't want to impose my opinion at all, but honestly, it's a little funny to see something written about the Crimean War (more than 150 years ago!!!!), which is written in line with the ideas shown in the 1968 film "The charge of the light brigade" in the first minute of the film, where the cartoon is. It's just a little funny. Although I can understand. Objectivity doesn't come easy. Do the British or the French really want to remember about their friends the Bashi-Bazouks? They want to remember about the "thin red lines", "the charge of the light brigade", "grand fleet" and so on.178.155.64.69 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told multiple times, if you include a quote you say who the quote is by, this should not be that hard to understand (such as "According to..."). This is my last word here until you show some ability to comprehend what you are being told.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? Really? Wow, so be it. It's weird though. Why are you not satisfied with the reference to a literary source? The author, the title of the book, the ISBN, and even the page number are indicated there. What's more?178.155.64.69 (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.