User talk:Lupodimare89

Lupodimare89, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lupodimare89! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Nerva Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the International Freedom Battalion page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Military History

Hey, I´ve seen you created lots of material about military history. I don´t know if you´re already aware of it but there is a project about that subject with a place for discussion, fellow enthusiasts and guidelines to improve articles, a framework to implement the articles better, open-tasks lists and tons of links, information and inspiration. Interesting for you might be e.g. the taskforces about Maritime warfare, Russians & Soviets and World War II. Everybody is welcome so if you want just take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and sign up if you´re interested.

Likewise, in this month we have the annual Backlog Drive which creates a friendly competition by awarding points for certain activities; the articles you create within that time being among those (if the articles were requested or redlinked anywhere before). You don´t have to be a member of the project to sign up either so as always you´re welcome to see for yourself and participate if you´re interested.

Anyway good luck, feel free to contact me if I can be of any help, and please keep up the good work. ...GELongstreet (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation! Sadly I have very little time to partecipate on this and I am more like exploiting at the best a time of my life when i can dedicate on working on some pages. Every kind of fix and implement and discussion over the articles I created or edited it's welcome! My point of interest is the naval warfare on Eastern Front, that so far saw very little works before... apart the Black Sea sections with a completely not-neutral Romanian POV btw. Lupodimare89 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final note

Hey mate, I'm getting really tired of lengthy debates with you. Literally, tired. Let me be clear: I never set out to create fairy tales about my country's navy. Before starting to write about it, I made sure I had what to write about. I feel blessed, in a way. The amount of info regarding the size and combat effectiveness of my country's navy surpassed my wildest dreams. As given by Google Books English-language sources, anyway. My beef with you is not the info you advance, but the way you advance it. You expect me, after hours upon hours of researching book scans that back up what I say, to simply take your word for it. Who are you, for me to just believe you? Are you an author versed on the subject whose work can I access? Doubt it. You expect me to dump hours of hard work and take your word for it just because, I can't have that. Moreover, you expect me to write your un-sourced allegations. In other words, you want me to do your work, like you own me or something. All I did, was sanctioned by the Wiki's rules. I'm a law-abiding hard working editor, I don't need this rubbish. Tell you what mate, if you find the sources, I am not gonna stop you. Go ahead and plaster your stuff all over my articles or whatever, just make sure to source them. English-language book sources, preferably. Call me a dinosaur, but I find books much more legitimate than web sites. Anyways, back it up properly and there's no problem for me if you write something. That's all I got to say. Torpilorul (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just the main info is the Chief historian of the War History Institute of Russian Ministry: Miroslav Morozov. A guy who is not here to to pass around the old soviet propaganda and who rather spend his time to debunk their old myths. I have started researching on naval warfare on eastern front since... 2013. You can see yourself M.M. debunking some of old Romanian mistakes in the most active Romanian forum (English based) forum of the Navy: https://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=6262 My "allegation" received all proper sourcing, citing reliable information beacuse based upon the post-Soviet Union downfall when the archives of Soviet submarines turned of public domains and pertinent authros wrote books of them. I suggest you to make proper research on original sources like here (english-translated German Navy War Diaries including Black Sea operations translated by the US Navy): https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Germany.+Kriegsmarine%3B+United+States.+Office+of+Naval+Intelligence%22 Your aggressive attitude, including the clearly politically affected lines like "The amount of info regarding the size and combat effectiveness of my country's navy surpassed my wildest dreams." speak alone: who make research has no "dreams" nor expectactions. Just plain data: and you exploit the fact there is indeed large literature that made no attempt to check the REAL losses and the real location and the real operations of the Soviet boats. I saw the exactly SAME thing with my fellow countrymen: I am no Russian, I am Italian. There are lots of Italian sites and English-based literature over the Eastern Front that report successes of Italian MAS boats on Ladoga Lake sinking a "Bira-class gunboat", without losses, reports of Soviet merchants torpeded and sunk in Black Sea with minimal losses, the very famous case of cruiser "Molotov" torpedoed by MAS. Lots of English books report it, because NONE checked the other side.. And the truth was that no "Bira" (nor any other soviet boat) was ever sunk in Ladoga Lake, likely not a single vessel was torpedoed by Italian MAS in Black Sea, "Moltov" was more likely torpedoed by Luftwaffe. Lupodimare89 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Gulf of Riga campaign) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Gulf of Riga campaign, Lupodimare89!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting article and a useful addition to Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, etc.

Hello. You seem to not understand how Wikipedia views sources. As far as I can tell, the website in question is run by a Evgeniy Chirva. It is, by definition, a self-published source. There are exceptions that allow us to use self-published sources if the individual is an established expert in the field. But Chirva is not an established expert (by which I mean, he has not written any books published by reputable publishers, any articles published in historical journals, etc.), which means we can't use the material, especially when it contradicts reputable historians like Whitley and Rohwer. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand for once why wikipedia will still remain a terrible source for anyone who has some interest on the field. Rohwer is far from a "reputable historians" considered he published with poorly updated sources. The site(as wrote in comment) it's based upon data from Miroslav Morozov and Platonov, the best updated modern-day authors on the field. However i found another western author who reported the (correct) causes of losses of 2 of subs reported on that field. Lupodimare89 (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohwer is indeed a reputable naval historian - some of his material may be dated, but that is or will be true for literally every historian. It doesn't matter what sources Chirva uses, his website is nothing more than a hobbyist site, and it cannot be used here. Whatever sources he uses should be cited directly, assuming they are reliable. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not. His works bear a large number of mistakes over the Eastern Front naval warfare. It wasn't his fault, to his credit, given the fact that the bulk of Soviet data was made available for authors only years after the fall of USSR. To his credit there is the point he was the only author who at least bothered to try studying what little surfaced from Russian own literature and attempted to show a more complete scenario. I completely refute your poorly-studied statement of "nothing more than a hobbyist site", i suggest you to translate and study it more considering it give specific data-log of each submarine while other more widespreadly used sites on wikipedia (like u-boat.net) doesn't make it but doesn't see a similar Russia-phobia censorship. Quite illogic to be honest, considering the top-"hobby" of the modern russian authors is indeed dismantle the soviet literature and unproved claims. Regardless, concerning the M-class (and other pages) luckily other western authors since 2000s begun reporting a bit of the new info and revised data, and I fixed the page according this. Lupodimare89 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Soviet submarine M-111

Thanks for creating Soviet submarine M-111.

A New Page Patroller Rosguill just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

It is currently unclear whether the subject meets notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Consider merging content to Soviet M-class submarine

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lupodimare89. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]