User talk:Sergey Tsvigun

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PL-21, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mach ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/PL-21 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/PL-21?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Pantsir" edit war.
I see you had undone my reversion and then re-added the content, which is unexpected, but appreciated. On the whole, this edit war was very unnecessary, because the only thing you had to do there was to calm down and check the guidelines on referencing, which, while prohibiting usage of direct social media links in a "ref" tag, definitely do not prohibit sources based on social media posts. Also, you wrongly come to the conclusion there was some ideological component to these reversions: if you revise my previous edits in the "Pantsir" article, you'd find out I am not on any side there other than the side of Wikipedia. It's just that properly sourced content can not be removed from an article out of boredom or dislike for something, and I hope you understand that. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Considering cited sources, finally I concluded that authors of the articles seemed to be specialists in their fields and they in general reasonably described their opinions. However, drafting style in the articles not neutral, their writers evidently support one side in the war - Russian-Syrian government one. The same could be said according sites where they are published. Furthermore, a paragraph describing the Pantsir combat use in Syria is dominated by Russian point of view. So, it gave the impression that somebody intentionally inserted and advocated one-side account and assessment of developments. And when you relatively quickly undid my edit and after reviving your recent edits I concluded that you probably were Eastern Slavic despite the Spanish-style nickname, my suspicion only strengthened. As a result, these factors created mutual misunderstandings and mistrust which, in their turn, contributed to war of edits and wasting time to eventually unnecessary multiple revisions of edits and controversies in edits description. -- Sergey Tsvigun (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're talking about, but it should be noted that keeping track of contributors' allegiances is way beyond our responsibilities as editors: Wikipedia already deals with propaganda through depreciation or blacklisting of certain sources and our job here is just to make sure everything added to an article is properly sourced and, if it's needed, make a case for limiting/prohibiting an ideologically colored source usage on this page. The rest is administrators' job. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)