User talk:Timmtell

August 2022

Hello, I'm Andethyst. I noticed that in this edit to T-90, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andethyst (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are obviously VERY invested into the Ukraine situation and very obviously on ukraine's side, but do you really you need to vandilize this Encyclopedia for your activism?

Partisan memes simply don't belong on this site. The reason I have given was more than enough to remove that section. Timmtell (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That editor can just as easily accuse you of being on the Russian side, which wouldn't be much of a stretch given literally all edits you have made have been pro-Russian/Soviet. Also, we don't call good faith edits vandalism here, you were reverted for removing a large chunk of sourced content, that is not vandalism. See WP:VANDALISM. TylerBurden (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Winter War. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Timmtell, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try 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. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No original theories or opinions in articles

Timmtell, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that while anyone can edit an article, that doesn't mean we can insert our pet theories into articles; instead, everything added to an article must be verifiable, and this is best achieved through the use of citations to reliable sources. In addition, where sources hold differing opinions, the article must maintain a neutral point of view by representing the majority view and significant minority views in proportion to their appearance in reliable sources.

I noticed that in several articles you have been adding fringe theories or your own ideas about history into the articles without providing a source, or in contradiction to sources already present:

at Vichy France, you added content about the 'continuity' of Vichy from the previous government which is not present in the source already there, and which contradicts majority opinion about the unique rupture that Vichy represents in the long history of France.
at Sack of Constantinople you added content claiming that the Byzantine Empire suddenly ceased to exist, without providing a source, and contrary to the preponderance of reliable sources.
after two IP editors changed the result of the Winter War in the Infobox to "Soviet victory" and were reverted, you got into a long discussion at Talk:Winter War arguing for your pet theory that it was an "obvious Soviet victory" in the face of unanimous opposition from at least four editors, repeatedly asking you for sources, pointing out the inadmissibility of original research, and stressing the importance of adherence to reliable sources rather than personal opinion.

Going forward, it's really important that you understand a couple of key points if you want to keep editing at Wikipedia:

as editors, all content we add is merely a summary of the views of the preponderance of reliable sources (including majority, and significant minority views). Views held only by a tiny minority of sources cannot be added to the article at all. We use citations to verify added content.
adding your own ideas or theories about history (or anything else) to an article is considered original research, and is expressly forbidden by Pillar #2 of Wikipedia's Five pillars concerning neutral point of view.

Please note that if you continue your previous pattern of adding unsourced original research or fringe opinion to articles, that could be viewed as disruptive, and you risk having your editing privileges suspended. Feel free to contact me on my Talk page if you have any questions about this; you may also ask any questions about editing Wikipedia at the WP:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with wikipedia is the complete ban on primary sources in favour of secondary ones, so the entire setup of this site is literally anti-scientific.

For examble if if someone said on video something and a journalist just straight up lies about what was said in an article its not allowed here to just use this video as a source to get the facts straight as this would be an "original intepretation", it doesn't help that the "riable sources" that can be used or not on this are ideologically filtered. Timmtell (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]