User talk:ECGuard

August 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ledra Street has been reverted. Your edit here to Ledra Street was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ySmymQb0A) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Raider Squadrons (Cyprus) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Raider Squadrons (Cyprus), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This article was far from unreliable with nearly every sentence having at least one source but anyways, as I said on the talk page of the article, ive added more sources which cross reference some of the information. ECGuard (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also ask that next time, before you move an article, come to my talk page first and show me where your issues are so that we/I can fix it instead of moving the whole article and not allowing for improvement. ECGuard (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "...not allowing for improvement." - this comment doesn't make sense. The article wasn't deleted, it was just moved to draft, the whole point of that being so that you can improve it. Just fix the issues that were pointed out and re-submit. Also, it's best to WP:PING the user you are replying to (eg: ), to ensure they're aware of your post. Typically they should either watch your talk page (at least temporarily) or subscribe to this thread, but we're all human and sometimes we forget. - w o lf  15:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With this logic there are a lot of articles that "need improvement" with even the same tags you put but dont get moved for one, what was being asked of me as apparently being unverifiable, if ive gone and put the sources, surely I would have made sure that those same sources include what im then saying in the article otherwise I simply wouldnt have put it, hence my confusion, hence me asking, WHAT source is the problem, WHERE in the article, so that I can go back and rectify it if possible, someone just telling me the sources are unverifiable when I would in turn dispute that, isnt going to get anyone anywhere, hence why moving the page is also ludicrous.
 * So Ill say it more bluntly vis a vi the verifiability one, tell me the exact sentences you take issue with so that I can find more reliable sources. ECGuard (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I will answer you blunty as well then; In regards to any sourcing problems, I have no idea. I didn't move the page, and the only issue I pointed out was the bare urls (which is a problem with the page, and a pretty straight-forward one at that). You need to ask the editor that moved the page and/or raised the other issues with it. But before you do, I can tell you thing: the whole "but other pages also have this, that or some other thing as well, yadda, yadda, yadda"... will get you no where. This is about your article, not any others. Just focus on that. (jmho) - w o lf  21:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I made that comment in passing also now were circling because my original statement was asking that from the very begining "come to my talk page first and show me where your issues are so that we/I can fix it instead of moving the whole article" ECGuard (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Couple points; what you're requesting isn't really feasible. The reaaon why there is draft space is just for situations like this, where a new article has problems, the page can simply be moved, the creator notified, and if they choose, they can work on bringing the page up to standard. That doesn't always happen, and we can't have a problematic page just sitting there in main space. Moving a page is not a big ordeal, it's a simple mouse-click. If a reviewer was to give in to your request that they check with creator first, wait to see if they respond, see of they're competent and cooperative, then, if there's an immediate and continuing discussion, they would then go over the problems and work on fixing them until... the page is ready for mainspace? Can you see how: review-> tag-> move page-> notify-> move on, is a simpler, faster and more effective process? Remember, it's not just your page, but hundreds, maybe thousands, of new pages being pushed out there daily. The few reviewrs we have just can't take the time and cater to individual editors in the manner your requesting. I, on the other hand, am making an effort to help you here (or at least, help you to help yourself.) If you'll notice, I made some edits to your page today. I wanted to find a bareurl and show how easy it is to fill it in. As it is, I happened to find a bareurl that also came back as "404" (expired), so this is a 'two-fer' type of deal, where you can also see how easy it is to fix an exprired ref using archives. When I fill in bareurls, I use a basic five parameter cite template: url, title, publisher, date & access-date. The ref was in the "Relationship with Greece" section. Here's the diff, along with the five parameters, I also added two more; archive-url & archive-date. This info is typically found by using the Wayback machine. You go the Wayback page, enter the expired url into aearch box and voilà, it almost always gives you an archive url & date, and brings up the page for you to have a look at. Anyway, you'll find I updated the other half-dozen refs in that section to my basic standard (which you are not obligated to use, btw. It works for me, you can use it or find a format that works for you... and the project). I also went on to copy/edit that section. Some mimor changes to grammar and structure. There were links that had to be removed, (basically, give WP:LINK a read). There are a couple of refs I tagged that you'll need to address. Speaking of refs, elsewhere on the page, many of your "completed" refs didn't have dates (at all). And there are some refs there where you'll need to use specific templates, such as Cite:twitter and Cite:youtube (but becareful, youtube refs are often not allowed). While it appears you know how to set up duplicate refs (eg: refs #8, 10, 37, 54, 63 & 64 on the current version) you'll need to be able to set up nearly duplicate refs (eg: same book, different pages). It's actually pretty easy. But, I think that's enough for now. Let me know if you have any questions, (I'm watching this page). Hope this helps. - w o lf  13:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well hello again, for one of the citations on the 2 operating together, ive added a better source with the added quote, im working on the other one right now with regards to the sibling units, I will say though that on one of your questions, I didnt find it in the article regarding "Εθνικα θεματα", but by translation that would mean "national issues", if I can today, ill also start fixing the urls with the wayback machine. ECGuard (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, ECGuard. Thank you for creating Raider Squadrons (Cyprus). User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey man, no problem. ECGuard (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Raider Squadrons (Cyprus) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Raider Squadrons (Cyprus), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

COI check for Cypriot military
Hello ECGuard. Do you have any connection to the military of Cyprus? Most of your edits seem to relate to it. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Its an area of interest but other than that, no. ECGuard (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Cypriot Chauvinist. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)