User talk:Tomissonneil

Welcome!

Hello, Tomissonneil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Operation Overlord did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Mathglot (talk)

Sievierodonetsk

My keyboard & the autocorrection maimed my comment on the revert, so I ask it here: Please add the specific ref / link, otherwise we have no idea what you are talking about. Applodion (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the same reference, the interview with Reznikov. Around the 12:20 mark. Tomissonneil (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience and the expansion. I hope that my reverts did not frustrate you too much; it's just that the articles on the Russo-Ukrainian War attract a lot of bad faith edits, so I was overcautious regarding your additions. Applodion (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War in Donbas (2014–2022)

I undid your removal per wp:KDL. Adakiko (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced information

Hello Tomissonneil, I have viewed some of your contributions in some 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine articles, and there are many issues in them, especially the addition of unsourced information regarding casualties and the use of B or C rate sources for the same criteria. When makings claims of a enemy combatant Reliable Sources should be considered or used, please avoid adding strange numbers(ie 5,7,17) in this type of articles. Mr.User200 (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a false edit summary, your source never state your change What are you playing?.Mr.User200 (Mr.User200) 11:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What am I playing? The Russians were claimed to have 3 times the number of men the Ukrainians had. You, on the other hand, went through each of my edits, all backed by numbers provided by an advisor to the Ukrainian President, and removed the ones you don’t like. While the numbers may not be accurate, they’re what the Ukrainians have released up till now. If you have a better source, by all means add it in, but if not, then please stop removing sourced information and replacing it with nothing. Tomissonneil (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate in the source you provided the excerpt that say Russian forces have 120,000–150,000 men in the frontline.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61145578 This source by the BBC states that the Ukrainians had about 40,000-50,000 troops at the beginning of the battle. The source I included said that the Russians outnumbered them three-to-one. Therefore, 120,000-150,000. Also, I don’t understand why you don’t think a Ukrainian government source linked to the president isn’t authentic, or why you locked the pages to prevent me or anyone else from including it. Again, you replaced it with NOTHING. You just don’t like it. Unless a better source comes along, such as the Russians actually releasing their casualty figures, it’s all that’s available at the moment. Tomissonneil (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indicate in your source the part that literally says that Russia have 120,000-150,000 deployed. Even if it says it's three to one, I simply can't find it, it doesn't means we have to assume or imply the analyst of your source took as real the BBC number. You are just creating numbers and using one source as the justification.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, as if using two sources to come to a conclusion is “ creating” numbers. But you know what’s not? Using Ukrainian government sources in the pages to show what they claim Russian casualties are. You know what I put after each source? “Ukrainian claim”, because the numbers are what the Ukrainians claimed them to be, not as a final count. After all, the Russians rarely, if ever, release their casualty figures. But simply putting “unknown” when there are indeed numerous casualty claims, and then locking the page so that no one can change it because you don’t like the sources, even if new information comes out, is wrong. Tomissonneil (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2022 Snake Island campaign, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Lemonaka (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Lemonaka (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page blanking

Hi, I noticed that you recently blanked one of the sections on my talk page. Is there a reason for this? The edit can be reinstated, but this is your first warning for blanking / removing content on others’ talk pages. PilotSheng (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit— I just saw your initial edit and I thought that you just removed a random section. No worries, but still try to refrain from doing that. Personally I have no problem with Arestovych, and I was the one who put his claim in the battle of bakhmut (bob) article. I’ll slide it into the avdiivka article soon PilotSheng (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PilotSheng My apologies! I didn’t actually intend to remove anything, I was editing my paragraph, but my phone was freezing up, and I guess I accidentally removed it while trying to unfreeze it. Yet another reason why I hate editing on mobile haha. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and yes, what I originally wrote does still stand. Tomissonneil (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed restriction

Hi Tomissonneil,

I have noticed that you have recently edited pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please note that, due to community consensus documented at WP:GS/RUSUKR, only extended-confirmed editors may make such edits.

When in doubt, please assume that a topic is covered by this restriction. We call this "broadly construed". If this still leaves you unsure about whether a topic is affected by the restriction, feel free to ask on my talk page.

This is not widely announced to newcomers, so I'm not blaming or condemning you for not knowing about this. I'm also not saying that your editing has been problematic in any other way. Your edit may well have been perfectly fine in all other regards, yet may have been removed for this reason.

Additionally, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has recognized "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" as a generally contentious topic area. Don't worry: The restriction to extended-confirmed editors is about the Russo-Ukrainian War, not the entirety of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The box below contains standardized advice for everyone.

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS.

This may be confusing, so I'll attempt to summarize it:

Only extended-confirmed editors may edit pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Details and exceptions can be found at WP:GS/RUSUKR.
All edits about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, by all users, need to be done with extra care.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if there are any questions.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Bakhmut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kirby. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Your recent editing history at Battle of Bakhmut shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please refrain from removing sourced information from wikipedia articles. I assumed good faith at first, but since you've removed the content twice again, and replaced it with out of date information, I have to assume you've been watching the edit history and know all citations are in the article by now. If you have a problem with the validity of a major newspaper or official, please use the talk page. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re the vandal. You’re the one vandalizing the page, and you’ll be receiving your own warning. Tomissonneil (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been completely transparent and cited all information. You know this. At this point it just flatly looks like you're deleting sources for the heck of it. Saying in your edits "its not whats in the sources" is a blatantly untrue statement when you know it is at this point. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did? You didn’t add the 70,000 source until AFTER your flagged me. You just changed it from 70,000 to 80,000 without adding it previously. And I didn’t delete any sources, I just reverted the figures. You’re now falsely accusing me of things in order to insult me, rather than actually attempting to discuss this with me to see what my view was. Tomissonneil (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why you're saying that, I added the citation before restoring the infobox edit, and my edit summary even said I was adding a citation.:/ You then immediately said the info wasn't in the sources (not true) and accused me of "disruptive editing" (also not true). Nothing I've accused has been false, and if you want to point out what isn't, go ahead. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Your edit to Battle of Bakhmut has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Content was added on May 4, 2023 , copied from the Washington Post. — Diannaa (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. 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. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

AncientWalrus (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bakhmut

Why did you remove this as well? Also, a former US Military commander’s report being removed just because of where he posted it rather than the information it contains is ridiculous, and you know it.

See WP:RS and WP:TWITTER. Kleuske (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curly quote marks

Per MOS:CQ, we do not use curly quote marks. I have noted that you have been consistently using curly quote marks in your edits such as in this edit here. Could you please not use curly quote marks in future. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BMP and BTR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luhansk Oblast campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borova.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting references

Hello, when adding references, please add them in a proper format rather than adding WP:BAREURLS.

You can use a tool like https://citer.toolforge.org/ to do this easily, all you need to do is paste the link and it does the rest of the work for you.

Thanks TylerBurden (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]