User talk:91.237.86.201

MSBS
See article talk page, and stop edit warring (3RR). --E-960 (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 91.237.86.201 before editing further, please the response from the Ministry of Defence, it states that out of the 40,000 rifles delivered only 3,705 had to be sent back to the manufacturer for repairs and only because of an issue with the magazines (not the rifle itself), also regarding ONet's claim that "Grot rozpadł się podczas strzalania" to nie jest prawda! Takie uszkodzenie miało miejsce 1 raz z 40 tys." So, pls consider that your text in the article is one-sided and inaccurate. That's why it's good not to rush on Wikipedia trying to base entire text on news articles instead of high quality sources. --E-960 (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But Ministry of Defence don’t write how many rifles have malfunctions, they write only how many are send back to manufacturer. Onet is high quality source. There is second high quality source from Milmag confirmed many problems with this rifle . Third source is Defence 24 together with FB Radom - manufacturer of Grot rifles .TV republika is fake political news page, its low quality source. --91.237.86.201 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at FB MSBS Grot 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --E-960 (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --E-960 (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be 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. 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: 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. --E-960 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

February 2021
Please note that repeatedly calling another editor a liar is a personal attack and will lead to sanctions if continued. Please keep comments focused on article content rather than other editors' behavior when debating article content, and keep your opinions about other editors to yourself. signed,Rosguill talk 23:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to HESA Shafaq, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ZLEA T \ C 18:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at AgustaWestland AW139, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello 91.237.86.201! Your additions to AgustaWestland AW149 have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * its under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license like all press articles.--91.237.86.201 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you cannot copy text verbatim from copyrighted sources such as magazines and websites. You must rewrite them completely in your own words. Even copying public domain text is not recommended, as that is plagiarism. But I'm not going to argue with you about this here. I've reported you to an admin who deals with copyright violations on Wikipedia, and they will handle the discussion from now on. BilCat (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect when you say that all press articles are compatibly licensed. They are not. For example, this page is marked as " © All Rights Reserved 2021"; this page is marked as "© Janes.com 2021 All Rights Reserved"; this page is marked as "© 2019 DVV MEDIA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED".— Diannaa (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

MSBS, again
Pls do not restore the disputed text, again these are personal OPINIONS, not official findings (all the reasons why the inclusion of this information is problematic are listed on the talk page). Also, pls consider the comment made by one of the admins on the talk page. '''Administrator note: Key items to review: WP:ONUS, WP:ASPERSIONS. El_C 06:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)'''

"WP:ONUS Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." --E-960 (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on FB MSBS Grot. 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: 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. Loafiewa (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at SIG Sauer SIG516, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Loafiewa (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

FB MSBS Grot
Your recent editing history at FB MSBS Grot 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --E-960 (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You started the editing war by deleting large amounts of text which is vandalism and a violation of Wikipedia rules. You earlier undone another user's edits three times. Which means that you was the first to violate the rule you are writing about. 91.237.86.201 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pls familiarize yourself with the talk page discussion on this subject. Wikipedia should not be a place where personal YouTube reviews are inserted, whose reliability is questioned by others: "Yet, when [the] Grot was subjected to the sand test, the dust mysteriously stuck on the gun surface, that can indicate the lubrication of the assault rifle before the test – something that could explain the result… Thus, the “test” was not conducted in an objective manner (at best) and staged (at worst).” - Jan Moszczuk, writer for the Frag Out! firearms magazine. Also, as noted on the talk page no other major firearms article contains a "Failed bids" section, not HK416, FN SCAR or CZ 805 BREN. --E-960 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not personal review, all defects are confirmed by military magazines Milmag, Defence24, FB Radom and Territorial Defence Forces. And It is in Polish Wikipedia article about MSBS Grot too.91.237.86.201 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --E-960 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --E-960 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --E-960 (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. E-960 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Leonardo Helicopters AW249, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. BilCat (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)