User talk:GeneralKutuzov

Invitation to join MILHIST
 Hello,, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Jai Gangaajal
Care to explain this revert? WP:NFF is not met, and the editor who silently reverted restored plagiarized content, as did you. Feel free to reply here, I've added your talk page to my watchlist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I only see one sentence that is a loose paraphrase of the post you linked to. The rest of the article appears to be perfectly legitimate. I would maybe consider deleting that particular sentence, while keeping the bulk of the article intact. In any case, your total blanking of the page was not justified by Wikipedia policy, because there is neither an issue of copyright infringement nor one of direct plagiarism at issue here. GeneralKutuzov (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the wording used to be a loose paraphrase, I consider it a direct, close paraphrase of very specific wording, and that's only part of the issue. The other issues are that the article does not conform to WP:NFF as no indication has been provided that the film meets our basic film notability standards, which require that principal photography be established as having begun. Only when that happens will we begin to approach "perfect" legitimacy. Neither you nor the silent SPA bothered to do that in spite of my clear explanations and a talk page comment from September. If you want to take the helm on that, feel free, but if you don't, please restore the redirect, and I strongly advise you to use clear edit summaries in the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I should have clarified two additional points: If an article isn't consistent with our notability guidelines, it is at risk of deletion. The redirect allows us to retain the existing content and the contribution history until such time as its notability can be established. So between the two options, a redirect is better. The second point, if you opt not to restore the article to a redirect, I will, since A) consensus is achieved through discussion B) I opened a discussion on the matter in September and C) you have not yet provided a clear rationale in that discussion for why we should ignore existing community consensus (WP:NFF) in favor of keeping a flimsy crystal ball article in live space. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What is and what is not vandalism
Hello. Before you give out any more vandalism warnings I would like you to read What is not vandalism. A couple of the edits you have given warnings for vandalism were not vandalism. Please be careful when giving out warnings and be sure they actually apply. Thank you. HighInBC 16:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In agreement here. This edit does not constitute vandalism. Flyer removed unsourced content that was laden with poor typography, in a subject area (India/Pakistan/Afghanistan) that is highly contentious and subject to discretionary ArbCom sanctions. Any editor worth their salt would have done the same thing. Kutuzov, you should strongly consider striking out the warning and apologizing for your mistake. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree on the subject of removal of nonsense typography, but the replacement for this was just as incorrect. The final (current) version, as edited by Bruhl, clearly shows the correct status of the polity, as a "village and union council". Flyer incorrectly identified the village as a "Village of Mirza Ahmed", in addition to keeping the "khurd" in the title of the infobox. This would seem to indicate a violation of WP: Vandalism. GeneralKutuzov (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No it most certainly does not. I am an administrator here so it is my job to interpret policy. Have you even read the link I sent you: What is not vandalism? Every single vandalism warning you have given out today has been incorrect, including the on you gave to the article talk page. You are warning well established people doing good work here. Please stop giving out warnings until you have a better understanding of policy. HighInBC 17:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I too am an administrator here. Flyer didn't identify the village as anything, Flyer removed unsourced content. That's not vandalism. Vandalism involves the deliberate introduction of problematic content, which Flyer did not do. She was involved in normal, good-faith, mechanically-assisted (STiki) editing. We don't hold editors who act in good-faith accountable for other users' vandalism, which is what you are doing when you accuse Flyer of vandalism for not spotting another editor's vandalism. Since you are relatively new, I'm happy to file this under "learning curve", but I still think you should strike out the erroneous warning and apologize. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with HighInBC and Cyphoidbomb. Flyer was reverting obvious vandalism. The fact that she did not catch all the vandalism that had occurred on the page does not constitute vandalism. Flyer did not introduce the erroneous information that remained on the page originally; she just failed to spot and correct it. I suggest that you return to her page, strike the warning and apologise. And also take the time to really understand what vandalism is and is not. Thanks.   Harry    Let us have speaksundefined 17:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)