User talk:Wingwraith

2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown
I don't want to discourage you as a new editor, but please engage with more experienced ones. Right now there are a bunch of unexplained removals and other mish-mash going on.Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kindly explain your edits to prevent conflict. Further, their are norms of OL and other MOS that you are ignoring.Lihaas (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What edits are you referring to? Wingwraith (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All your have no summary
 * Has an language tag already for German, noreason for the RS tag, its established on wP, pthis was lost in moving content without the sources, this isboth OVERREF and moved within the pag, NOT removed.
 * You are a new editor, but plase understand.Lihaas (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Youe got some really good edits and im not removing them. Just cleaning up for consistency. (iv thanked you for several)Lihaas (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely it doesn't matter if there is a "language tag" as it's still a non-English source that is being used for citation (for a controversial sentence I might add) in the English version of Wikipedia. As for the RS tag it is far from established that the source is a RS and in any case is one that we try not to use. Don't know what you are getting at regarding the last two edits. Wingwraith (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * language tags are for many other articles on the page. Alternatively you can ask for translation of the controversial sentence
 * Before the EC here, I was going to say this was on RSN a while ago and deemed fit.
 * Otherwise seems all fit, so go ahead with the good additions ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about the tags, but I still think that my edit is justified; after all, it's the kind of reaction that I'd expect if I cited a controversial claim to an English source on the Russian Wikipedia. And regarding the RS issue, again that's disputed, but what did emerge from that discussion (along with other threads dealing with the same issue) is that the source should be avoided, especially when it comes to Russian-related pages. Wingwraith (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

revert
I disagree.
 * Why? Wingwraith (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Tag bombing.
You are inserting unconstructive tags all over the place, and I've already given the reason for why they are unconstructive. WP:BRD stands for ... Bold Revert Delete. I was unambiguously reverting YOUR edits, which added no value to article the article in my opinion. Youre welcome to defend each and every one of your tags—but you should consider whether or not it's really worth the time, both yours and mine.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

THAAD
I invite you to open up a new section on the THAAD talk page with your question. We live in interesting times, don't we. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 07:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense --07:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I am accustomed to developing articles collaboratively, on the talk page, and that a wp:brd style of article writing tends to turn confrontational. Could we somehow work out a way to produce content without rancor. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 08:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Please be advised of this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Cox Report
Avoid removing relevant sourced text from articles, as you did at, please. You have asked for warnings before administrator action; this constitutes such a warning. Avoid removing relevant, sourced text from articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the material that I removed was unsourced (show me the sourced and relevant text that I removed from the article) and the least that you could have done is to keep the other perfectly reasonable changes that I made to the article instead of just unilaterally undoing all of them. Do not make this kind of wiki-hounding edit again on either my talkpage or the article itself or I will file a grievance against you on the Administrators' noticeboard. Wingwraith (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Be advised that as per the request in your OP, all of the extant material which pertain to our discussion (centralized under the reactions sub-section of the article) are sourced and relevant to the subject matter of the article; an explanation for the removal of the unsourced text in question can be found on the talkpage. Wingwraith (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sourced and relevant text you removed was "In December 1999, a group of physicists and other scholars from Harvard, Stanford, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory released an assessment of the Cox Report that published by the Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation. The review refuted all five major conclusions of the report, with the reference "M.M. May, Editor, Alastair Johnston, W.K.H. Panofsky, Marco Di Capua, and Lewis Franklin, The Cox Committee Report: An Assessment, Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), December 1999." You replaced that with a single-sentence quote, and, most importantly, removed the reference. I do note now that you've re-inserted the reference following my rollback, but the 'refuted all five major conclusions of the report' still remains absent from the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The arguments that you are bringing up are just ridiculous and I'm just going to ask for an interaction ban between the two of us if you keep this up. The removal of the reference was due purely to inadvertence on my part so the insinuation that you seem to be making that I did it on purpose was incorrect. With regards to the sentence itself it was, frankly writing, just crap - it was full of puffery and misrepresentation to make the criticism by the assessment report sound more authoritative and definitive than it actually was; why else would it matter to list those places where the authors worked at and portray the report as providing a categorical refutation of the conclusions of the Cox Report when in fact the criticism was much more qualified than that as it only said, to quote it verbatim, that "some (emphasis added) allegations did not seem to be well supported"? Wingwraith (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on Portal:Current events/2018 January 16
Following [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2018_January_16&type=revision&diff=821061072&oldid=821050377 this edit] and your "warning" on my talk page, I'd like to reply that your edit comment "the good guys we have it for the SK side" is an obvious non-argument. Maybe you understand why. If not, I'll tell explicitly: we need more neutral point of view and less bias here. Wakari07 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are misreading what I said I said firstly that you are making THEM out to be the good guys and secondly that that is what YOU are doing not me. Wingwraith (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I care for my country and for the United Nations too. I try to understand how my country (probably on the same "side" as yours) could get out of the Korean War imbroglio. I also expect a more constructive attitude than this useless blame game. Wakari07 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no "blame game" when this is entirely your fault as I'm not the one who is misreading the situation. Wingwraith (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all my fault... what a non-reasoning again. Now will you reply to my proposal on the talk page to simply add to the 'Vancouver Group' meeting that ? Or do you prefer to keep it anectodal, non-notable and unpublished altogether? Wakari07 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The meeting began on the 15th (as you pointed out) so you are not even discussing it on the right page. Also your/some columnist's opinion of that meeting (which isn't even printed in English) doesn't belong to the main article as it is only used to document news items. Wingwraith (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The meeting... was... held on... Tuesday January 16. Or the 16th of January if you prefer. The "long-standing" source is, still today, dated from the 15th ("January 15, 2018 / 10:28 PM"). It anticipated on the event, does not describe the meeting's outcome. It's set in the future tense. What prevents you from understanding this? Or did you not even bother to read the source? Wakari07 (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was held on the 16th then why did you remove the news item from the news portal for that day? Wingwraith (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe because, as I argued on 19 January on my talk page, also on 20 January on the portal talk page, it was entirely uneventful with nothing notable resulting from it? Wakari07 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 89.240.132.177 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Douma Chemical Attack
Thanks for the edits on the reaction section. I wasn’t able to get to it, but no big deal. It looks kickass. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 11:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ZiaLater ( talk ) 07:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jamez42. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

May 29th Current Events
Hi again. I've been keeping an eye on the May 29th Current Events page and the discussion around the use of SANA as a source hasn't cooled down. And Wakari07 is making some pretty wild statements Would you be able assist with moderation by setting up an WP:RFC? It looks fairly technical, and I'm still fairly new as an editor. Spoonlesscorey (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I reported that user to the edit warring noticeboard. Wingwraith (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Portal talk:Current events/2018 June 20
More input needed. Wakari07 (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.