User talk:Lazarbeem: Difference between revisions

 

Line 206: Line 206:

::::You have asked repeatedly. The answer is NO. The article body and the infobox are clearly not in conflict. This is becoming [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]]. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

::::You have asked repeatedly. The answer is NO. The article body and the infobox are clearly not in conflict. This is becoming [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]]. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

:::::They are, the header and infobox describe antifa as left wing while the article body, categories, and sources present describe antifa as far-left [[User:Lazarbeem|Lazarbeem]] ([[User talk:Lazarbeem#top|talk]]) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

:::::They are, the header and infobox describe antifa as left wing while the article body, categories, and sources present describe antifa as far-left [[User:Lazarbeem|Lazarbeem]] ([[User talk:Lazarbeem#top|talk]]) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

::::::Err no it does not at “worst” we say “some say it is far left”. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lazarbeem! 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

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, would you add a citation to Italian occupation of Corsica for your edit please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. I’m sorry that I didn’t do it immediately Lazarbeem (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In citations could you wrap links in some kind of citation template? WP:BAREURL. You could use the automatic reference generator in visualeditor at least. seefooddiet (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You made this edit and left an {{sfn}} error. Please reformat it not to be an error or otherwise consistent with the rest of the article. Ifly6 (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I reformat it? Lazarbeem (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I changed sfn to ref and /ref. I hope that this fixes the error. Lazarbeem (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TylerBurden (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:DUE weight and WP:SYNTH. TylerBurden (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got one quick question though, how should I use the information from those sources on the articles that I edited? For example, this article -> https://kyivindependent.com/suicide-missions-abuse-physical-threats-international-legion-fighters-speak-out-against-leaderships-misconduct/ from the Kyiv Independent talks about misconduct in the International Legion. I originally put it on the articles Looting and War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Should I have been more specific about the events that are described in the article or should I have kept it short? Furthermore, if another article talks about the same incidents can I put it in a cite note beside the Kyiv Independent source or should I write more about the incident and put the cite note beside it? Lazarbeem (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really know what’s going on with edits like this or this.

In the first one, you add that “Some people come to Ukraine with a motive to fight for freedom, for what is right. Others want to make money or are running from the law” to “extremism”.

Not only is the fact that money is a motivating factor mentioned literally right before you placed the sentence, but I don’t see what any of it has to do with extremism.

In the second one, you add this “Aguila-7” character as an example of a criminal in the legion, apparently ignoring that the source doesn’t confirm him as one, nor did you make it clear that the source was about criminals infiltrating the legion, not them being purposefully accepted.

This kind of stuff seems to keep happening with the same theme, and it’s starting to appear pretty WP:TENDENTIOUS. Remember that as said above, this is a CTOP, and you should be taking extra care instead of editing like you did above, apparently being more concerned with painting a narrative than actually representing the source you’re citing correctly. TylerBurden (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m taking quotes from the sources provided. The “Some people come to Ukraine with a motive to fight for freedom, for what is right. Others want to make money or are running from the law” should probably have been put under the “Leadership and criminality” subsection. The only reason I put it in the “Extremism” subsection is because I thought that it would pair well with the quote from Patrick Messmer. As for Aguila-7, I put him under the “Criminals who joined the legion” subsection because the source from the Kyiv Post said, “One case mentioned was that of a volunteer from El Salvador with the call sign Aguila-7 who, following a full drone training cycle conducted at Lviv’s “Killhouse Academy,” was serving with the logistical support team for a drone unit in Kharkiv. After investigation, it was discovered that he was a Mexican who previously served with the country’s “GAFE” Special Forces Airmobile Group, several former members of which are known to have become members of the ultra-violent Zetas cartels.” And lastly, I added the infiltration of the 3 former members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia because the source from the Kyiv post stated, “According to Intelligence Online, citing a Slovakian security source, at least three former Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas joined the International Legion using Panamanian and Venezuelan identity documents. One was eventually identified by the SBU at a drone training center in Dnipro after his gang tattoos and accent gave him away.” I put the former FARC members under the “extremist” subsection because it was a communist terrorist organization and because one of the three was identified by a gang tattoo per the Kyiv Post. If you have any advice as to where I should put all this information please do so.

Also the Kyiv post article is right here -> Latin American Drug Cartels Send ‘Volunteers’ to Ukraine for Drone Training Lazarbeem (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add onto the FARC stuff, it was recognized as a terrorist organization by Colombia and Brazil and is still recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States. As for the FARC dissidents, it’s successor organization, I do not know if any countries recognize it as a terrorist organization. Lazarbeem (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now compare it with what you’re actually adding to articles, you’re making your own conclusions instead of summarizing what the sources concretely state.

“Aguila-7” was never explicitly mentioned as a criminal, it only mentioned that he was part of a unit where several former members had later become cartel members, for you this is enough to label “Aguila-7” a criminal, potentially opening up a can of WP:BLP worms as well. I’m not sure why you omitted the rather key part of the source describing that the criminals were infiltrating the unit rather than being willfully accepted either, you only added that fake passports were used. TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s what I’m thinking, I’m going to completely exclude the Aguila-7 stuff, I’m going to put Lavrenyuk’s quote under the “Leadership and Criminality” section, and I’m going readd the FARC stuff to the “Extremism” section. I’m also not going to make that edit unless you tell me that you’re fine with it because I don’t want to make another mistake. Lazarbeem (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the topic of contentious topics, can you do me a favour and mark the List of battles with most Ukrainian military fatalities as protected. The reason as to why I am asking this is because I don’t know how to mark articles as protected and because it contains topics relating to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Lazarbeem (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not an admin, you can request protection for any article you’d like on WP:RPPI, I look forward to your creation of List of battles with most Russian military fatalities. TylerBurden (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m actually planning on making that list next (it’s almost as if you read my mind lol) Lazarbeem (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, like with the list for Ukraine, it’s probably going to need to be marked as protected due to “current events” Lazarbeem (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating this list. I look forward to your creation of List of battles with most Turkish military fatalities. Kajmer05 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Looting into War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia’s content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia’s licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you’ve copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Albania vs Serbia (2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania vs Serbia (2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you’ve significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lazarbeem (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask for something. I saw your edits. I wonder if I asked you to create an article, would you do it? Unfortunately, the articles I want don’t get created because I don’t know how to make them. Ömereditss (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s up? Lazarbeem (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I asked you to create battle articles, would you do it? Ömereditss (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay if it’s about the Russo-Turkish wars? Ömereditss (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about them specifically? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you create battles that are not on Wikipedia? Ömereditss (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I do. Is there a specific battle you want me to create an article for? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah

Siege of Beyazet (1829)

Battle of Dervish Cevan Ömereditss (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that but it will take awhile Lazarbeem (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okey no problem Ömereditss (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long. I’ve been busy with irl stuff and have been having a bit of a hard time translating the Russian language sources. can I publish what i have and then we both work on the article? Lazarbeem (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Not Problem NEMURO (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here it is Siege of Beyazet (1829) Lazarbeem (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you claim to be removing “information related to other units”, however every single source there cited includes mention of Shkval units and their performance.

If you are trying to make the argument that the article should only cover a Shkval Battalion connected to a specific brigade, that makes no sense, the article title is simply Shkval Battalion. TylerBurden (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in the infobox is the patch of the 59th Brigade’s Shkval Battalion and the person listed as the commander is the commander of the 59th Brigade’s Shkval Battalion so I assumed that the article was only referring to that Shkval Battalion. If that article is meant to represent more than one Shkval Battalion a few changes should be made Lazarbeem (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, maybe the article should be renamed to something like: “Shkval Battalion (59th Assault Brigade)” Lazarbeem (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn’t be basing that on pictures, you should be basing it on the article title, the content and the sources that support it, which quite clearly shows that is not the case. TylerBurden (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that the current article title is used by multiple battalions. Is there a solution we could work out so that more people don’t get confused? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a move, since sources appear to describe it as more of a type of unit associated with multiple brigades each with their “own” “Shkval” unit, for example two recent sources here and here describing a Shkval unit connected to the 141st Separate Mechanized Brigade. I can agree right now it’s a bit confusing as it appears kind of like a single battalion.

Something like “Shkval unit” or similar perhaps. TylerBurden (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, maybe something along the lines of “Shkval Battalion (59th Assault Brigade)” for example Lazarbeem (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But then we’re limiting it to one brigade. Are there enough sources to create separate articles for each unit? TylerBurden (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely though they’d probably be in Ukrainian Lazarbeem (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are attributing losses in chasiv yar from 2025 to battle of bakhmut, i dont think thats very accurate to use them as source for ua loses there. ~2025-31867-63 (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They aren’t, UALosses has a filter to sort by battle Lazarbeem (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find these battles interesting and I think these battles would be a great addition to the list of battles of the war of 1812 and I like your work. LucyGermanDog (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can do those in a bit Lazarbeem (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created Battle of Cranberry Creek Lazarbeem (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lazarbeem. Thank you for your work on Battle of Cranberry Creek. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for helping to build content related to the War of 1812. A rather small conflict, referenced with two historical markers and two commentaries (by the same author). It would be great to find find the reliable sources from which the historical markers were put together. I considered a merge to the War of 1812, but that’s too large-scale for this small part; perhap a merge to a locality; Alexandria, New York is the obvious one, where the battle is already mentioned.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that a merge was necessary. However, maybe some more sources would be beneficial Lazarbeem (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Recently on both Pokrovsk offensive and Russian Volunteer Corps, and these are not the first instances of this. TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got the source for the RVC from the article Active Club and only added it to the RVC because I thought that it was reliable. Do you want me to remove it from there too? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want you stop making WP:SYNTH edits adding content to articles citing references that do not say the things you claim that they do. TylerBurden (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that I got the source from the Active Club article, if that source is unreliable should I remove it from the Active Club article? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say the source was unreliable, this isn’t about you using unreliable sources, it’s about you repeatedly misrepresenting what sources are saying in favour of your own inserted narrative, if you don’t understand that at this point, we have a problem. It’s not enough to include a source, it needs to actually say what you’re adding. TylerBurden (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not yes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So then what’s the solution to the article body and the infobox being in conflict with each other? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a subject for the articles talk page, and does not change anything about what I said. If I say no, do not ever act as if I have said yes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to discuss it there but everyone keeps going off topic. It got to the point where I had to ask again Lazarbeem (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how I can ask what I need to ask without other editors getting off topic? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked repeatedly. The answer is NO. The article body and the infobox are clearly not in conflict. This is becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are, the header and infobox describe antifa as left wing while the article body, categories, and sources present describe antifa as far-left Lazarbeem (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Err no it does not at “worst” we say “some say it is far left”. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]