User talk:BilletsMauves

Hi BilletsMauves! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently nominated several articles on members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for proposed deletion. I do get where you are coming from. However, the rules under notability of politicians are one of the few cases where standards are verifiability, not notability per se. The current rule is that any member of a national legislature we can verrify was a member of national legislature, we have an article on no matter how little of substance we can say about them. Whether this policy is good is another matter, and like all Wikipedia policies it is open to change over time. However, such articles clearly are not candidates for Proposed Deletion. You are free to nominate them for deletion at AfD, but I think in this case you might want to start a discussion en masse about them at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard (because these articles were created by Lugnuts, who was recently banned from editing Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee, and there was at least until recently discussion about that matter there) or Wikipedia talk:Notability or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. There might be some other places someone else could point you to. I understand that these are very minimally sourced articles, but they do not meet the parameters for the Proposed Deletion process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that, thanks for your explanations. BilletsMauves^€500 20:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox was disrupted just 20 days ago,[1] without any explanation.

Now you need to describe that why you reverted my edit by mislabeling it as "non constructive"? You need to be aware of archives at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and also Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War/Archive_8, Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War/Archive_10 where enough editors agreed that should say "Indian victory" while Bangladesh Liberation War should say "India Bangladesh victory". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed prod tag you placed on this article, because there was a previous prod back in 2007. No opinion on notability. Pavlor (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't see that. Will bring it to AfD then. BilletsMauves^€500 09:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's borderline notable (see my edit-summary where I deprodded it). But this really isn't my area of expertise, and I don't know how military wikipedia-editors feel about articles on these sorts of topics. "Borderline GNG" doesn't mean "we must keep it as a stand-alone article" if it will never be more than a stub. I could envision merging it into Kongsberg Mesotech, its parent company. DMacks (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BilletsMauves,

I've been reviewing some articles you PROD'd and I'd like for you to start changing the way you tag articles for deletion in the future so that you are in line with best practices. First, please leave an edit summary with all of your edits. This is especially important when you tag an article for Proposed deletion. If an article is de-PROD'd and the PROD tag is removed, we need to be able to see that the article or file has already been PROD'd once since articles can't be PROD'd a second time. The way we know this is by looking at the edit summaries in the page history. So, please leave an edit summary like "Proposing article for deletion" or even just "PROD" so that any editor can see that the article has already been PROD'd.

Second, it's important to inform the page creator whenever you tag one of their page creations for deletion (whether it's for CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.). The easiest way to do this is to use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion. It's a very useful editing tool used by most page patrollers and many administrators. Just set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator" and then Twinkle will post these talk page notices for you whenever you tag a page for deletion. Twinkle will also include an informative edit summary so it takes care of both of these matters. Twinkle has a lot of very helpful features like maintaining deletion logs for you, the ability to post different types of talk page notices for editors, the ability to tag articles if you see problems, the ability to report vandals to noticeboards, Twinkle basically uses all of the most useful templates so you don't have to remember them all. I highly recommend it because it makes editing and patrolling easier.

If you could adopt these best practices for future deletion tagging, it would really help out your fellow editors and admins. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you did leave an edit summary in some articles you PROD'd, I wrote this message after deleting the first bunch of articles about mountaineers where you didn't. Thanks for doing this! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, no worries. Am I supposed to inform the page creator and other significant contributors even if they haven't edited anything since several years ? BilletsMauves^€500 21:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BilletsMauves, I think you are overdoing it on the PRODs. Aymatth2, yours was one of a number of articles for French secondary schools that this editor prodded for deletion. Liz, maybe you have an opinion too. I gotta run and get my kid, but I'll be back to look at all the other PRODs from this editor. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Of all the deprod rationales for my proposed deletions, I only see one that isn't flawed (lycée Lamartine). Maybe you have found some SIGCOV for the others too? If this is not the case, then I will see you at AfD. By the way, I don't understand how PRODing articles which lack sources that would help establish notability is "overdoing it". BilletsMauves^€500 07:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's silly to propose deleting an article on lycees that have existed for hundreds of years, nor do I understand the desire to delete such articles. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded Lycée Victor Hugo, Paris after glancing at the linked w:fr:Lycée Victor-Hugo (Paris), which gives much more information. That seems like an elementary check. The French are more likely to be interested in French secondary schools, and may well have dug up more material from more sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ton of things that have existed for hundreds of years and yet aren't notable. If the subject doesn't pass the related notability guidelines, then its article can be deleted. Policy matters, not what people think about one subject or another. BilletsMauves^€500 16:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "policy" that matters. There is only one thing: to write articles on notable topics that should not be forgotten, and to make all that knowledge available to everyone for free. What you could do, instead of venting all this aggression, is actually help work on these articles--because I don't think that you really searched very hard. For Lycée Carcado-Saisseval, you can run a quick search and say there's nothing. Or you could look into the women who founded the orphanage that turned into the school, Carcado and Saisseval, and study their history, and that of the Filles du Cœur de Marie, the religious order to which the school is still connected. And then maybe you'd find that we need more articles to cover that material too, that we don't have em because not enough en-wiki editors speak and read French. And I'll tell you again, from over a dozen years of experience, these specific subjects are going to be found worthy of keeping. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you felt that I was agressive towards you, that was not my intention. Rest of your message is well taken. BilletsMauves^€500 17:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing--thank you. Aymatth2, I wish it were true that the French articles were better: they are not. I haven't checked all of them, but it may well be that many of them were directly translated from the French wiki to ours. And in general the French wiki is much worse than ours, I can say with confidence.

Drmies The French wiki has fewer articles than the English, often short and poorly sourced, but in the case of w:fr:Lycée Victor-Hugo (Paris) it has enough sources to show notability, and some (unsourced) lists that seem useful. A school is often notable because pupils record their experiences and changes to the school are reported. I cannot see how Wikipedia would be improved by dropping these articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BilletsMauves, there's a few things here. First of all, and (to repeat myself) I speak with some experience since I used to slum at AfD all the time, such articles are often presumed to be on notable subjects and so they'll end as "keep" or "no consensus". Second, you said "BEFORE", but I hope I made it clear that in these cases that's just really hard. If a school acquires its name in 1992, one should not expect much coverage--but if the school goes back, as it did in one case, to 1624, then one just needs to look harder, with a variety of search terms for the various names and affiliations. I was able to do that for a couple, adding sources--but it took me a few hours, yes. So I don't think I'll be seeing you at AfD for these articles; I think you got too much common sense for that and I hope I was able to shift your perspective a bit for such historical topics. Still, I could use help with them--but what these articles really need are people who are cleverer than me, and who are native French speakers. In the meantime, I learned that the Reformation was much more powerful in the South of France than I ever knew, that Scottish Huguenots taught Calvinist stuff all over Europe, that the Counter Reformation was an important factor in the establishment of educational institutions...so many things. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some changes on that article made by a [now banned] sock over several edits (and several accounts, and several IPs...). That user is on a misguided ideological crusade with racist overtones that I hope is not allowed to continue, and he's spamming about a dozen articles with stuff "sourced" in articles in Russian that say not a word of what he claims, hiding behind the fact that most people can't read them (or don't care to check sources at all). I hope I did not revert anything you may have introduced, but if anything was deleted (I believe not), my apologies and I won't challenge their reintroduction if they're sourced. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with the R-27 Russian AAM missile? The edit is quite simple and straightforward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.165.240 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't sourced, so I removed it. Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." The articles you have linked to in your edits from today don't support your assertion, so I'm going to modify it and add some actual reliable sources that directly support the material. One of your sources is from 2020, so it obviously can't support a statement on what happens in 2022. The other talks about the R-27 only once, and only via a tweet, so it can't really be considered a reliable source per WP:SPS. What you say about "tons of pictures with Russian and Ukrainian jets going into combat with R-27 under their pylons" isn't really relevant either, because it falls under the Wikipedia:No original research guideline. BilletsMauves^€500 18:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and what is also your problem with the AGM-88. Everything is there with nice and straightforward citation. Simple sentences, no political or debatable views. Do you have a specific issue with myself? I honestly don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.165.240 (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what are you talking about exactly. The two edits I reverted back on 25 August, on the AGM-88 HARM article were unsourced. If you are talking about the Sukhoi Su-27 article, then it's simple: the specifications section is for the Su-27SK variant. It is not used by Ukraine, and the air forces that use the Su-27SK haven't adapted their aircraft to use HARM missiles; they don't use HARMs at all, actually. This rationale was already included in my edit summary by the way. If you have a problem with it, then describe precisely why you think it was flawed. But don't come back at me a month later, trying to defend your edits with one-liners. Thanks in advance. BilletsMauves^€500 19:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to report to the wikimadmins if you keep doing distruptive editing,abuse of power and vandalisme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Than Tun Ba Thein Tin (talk • contribs) 04:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like my edit? It points to another Wiki article. There is no new content, only a link. Explain yourself. Maple leaf eh (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "new content". At any rate, per WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". You didn't provide a citation to a source backing up your claims, so I reverted your edit. That's all. Maybe you thought that adding a citation isn't necessary because the Karrar (tank) article says the same things and backs up these claims with citations, but this equates to circular referencing.

By the way, it would be a good idea to be more polite the next time you write a talk page message; this one felt a bit rude. BilletsMauves^€500 12:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THe mig25 is still in service in algeria!!!!!!!!!!! bad news is that it will be retired this year 2023 46.26.171.216 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuo said at the AfD that there were reliable sources on this topic. Which ones were you thinking of? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second volume of the "Wings of Iraq" book series by Milos Sipos and Tom Cooper has some information on purchases of Soviet SAM systems, and the plans for the establishment of a national air defence centre in Baghdad, as well as the geographical structure of the ADC. "In the claws of the Tomcat", also by Tom Cooper, has a more detailed overview of the Iraqi integrated air defence system as of 1991. The information on specific units and commanders is much less detailed than in the draft article though. BilletsMauves^€500 18:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But i found no article talking about the T-80BV with a T-80U hull! Like anywhere, there is no source except those two photos (well there is also a video in which this tank appeared in the background for a few seconds). But i know for a fact that it existed! I even asked two members of the oryx blog team (a website considered a reliable source by wikipedia) and both said to me that those two photographs show a Ukrainian T-80BV with a T-80U hull, i could send you a screenshot of that convo.

My point is, that tank for a fact existed, but i haven't seen anyone talk about it outside of twitter. What should i do if i want it added to the list of T-80 variants? D1d2d3d29 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPS, self-published sources, including tweets, are largely not acceptable. On the subject of Soviet tanks or the Ukrainian army, there isn't any member of the Oryx team who can be considered an expert whose work has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. So neither a message exchange with these people, nor the tweets that you used as references will be adequate to back up your addition. If you can't find a source on that tank that fulfills the reliable source requirements, sadly you won't be able to add it to the article. BilletsMauves^€500 17:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> any member of the Oryx team who can be considered an expert whose work has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Correct me if i am wrong but i thought wikipedia considers oryx itself a reliable, independent publication? There is many articles using it as a source and none of those edits are removed D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oryx website itself is generally seen as a reliable source (some consider it reliable only for its loss count articles), but it still is a self-published blog, and thus it is not independent. BilletsMauves^€500 11:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your move of 3rd Tank Brigade (Ukraine) and 4th Tank Brigade (Ukraine). The reason is that just 3rd Tank Brigade could be any country. To make it precise it either needs to be globally unique (i.e. 82nd Airborne Division) or have an honor name to distinguihs it form other similar brigade (i.e. 132nd Armored Brigade "Ariete"). Hence all Ukrainian brigades have (Ukraine) behind their name, to instantly define their nation of origin. Best regards, noclador (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TheEagle107. I noticed that you recently removed content from Devil's Game (book) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you are not careful when making mass Kiev -> Kyiv changes, then I will have to ask for administrative attention. This is the third time I've spotted a change that is clearly against the consensus on historical names. These are also not minor edits. Mellk (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kyiv Pechersk Lavra and St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery still exist nowadays, and the relics are still there. These changes were not in fact "clearly against the consensus". BilletsMauves^€500 11:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you change "Kievan Rus" to "Kyivan Rus"? This is also an unambiguously historical topic. Mellk (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency. The article says it is "also known as Kyivan Rus'". It's in the first phrase. BilletsMauves^€500 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Kyiv is also known as Kiev, which is what is said in that article. But changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in such topics is against the consensus that was achieved (and we have already had plenty of editors blocked/topic-banned for not following this). Mellk (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that plenty of editors were blocked or topic banned for three changes that go against consensus. But feel free to search for more of them if that's your thing. BilletsMauves^€500 11:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are saying that you do not see any issues with those edits, and I am telling you that if it continues despite these concerns being raised, then I will have to ask for administrative attention, so that this becomes clearer to you. Mellk (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that I do not see any issues with those edits ? BilletsMauves^€500 11:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy call to let you know I've opened a discussion at RSN regarding Check Your Fact, with this diff used as an example. To be clear I have no issue with this edit, it's merely used as an example. All the best. CNC (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]