Back in July you protected [[Dassault Rafale]] as ECP under [[WP:CT/IMH]] back in Jully, when for Certain Events Involving India the page as a whole was subject to extensive disruption. Since then things seem to have simmered down, and while ”parts” of the page are under the mandatory-ECR of the IMH part of [[WP:CT/SA]], most of the article isn’t. I believe reducing the protection to semi would be something worth trying, to see if that is enough to handle the overall potential disruption at this time – wondering if you concur? – [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style=”color: maroon;”>One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Back in July you protected [[Dassault Rafale]] as ECP under [[WP:CT/IMH]] back in Jully, when for Certain Events Involving India the page as a whole was subject to extensive disruption. Since then things seem to have simmered down, and while ”parts” of the page are under the mandatory-ECR of the IMH part of [[WP:CT/SA]], most of the article isn’t. I believe reducing the protection to semi would be something worth trying, to see if that is enough to handle the overall potential disruption at this time – wondering if you concur? – [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style=”color: maroon;”>One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
:Sure, let’s give it a shot. I suspect the attention to the IMH part has died down somewhat since then, we’ll see if it’s been enough. {{pingback|The Bushranger}} [[User:Swatjester|<span style=”color:red”>⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style=”font-family:Serif”><span style=”color:black”>SWAT</span><span style=”color:goldenrod”>Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 15:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Φ
 |
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
They should not be given alerts for those areas. |
Hadasa1987 who you blocked for a month has apparently created a new account named Liliabrahamian which was created just an hour after your block.
Their first edits are strikingly similar to the peculiar way Hadasa1987 edits. The new account made an edit to United States involvement in regime change in which they randomly added a source. Hadasa1987 had also recently edited this page which is how I first made the connection. In this edit they also added random sources without changing the content. Most of Hadasa1987 edits are like this.
Liliabrahamian’s other first two edits were on pages about criticism of America:
The poor grammar and formatting, and POV wording is very much like Hadasa1987 edits on related pages such as:
After accessing English Wikipedia, Liliabrahamian then accessed Farsi Wikipedia and it turns out that Hadasa1987 is actually permanently blocked there since August 18 for sockpuppetry. Cheers 86.189.37.231 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, this does appear to be sockpuppetry. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 13:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester. My request here is about Central Intelligence Agency#Dominican Republic. I was going to comment on the talk page but it’s surprisingly locked down. I also can’t make an edit request as a result.
On 22 July you removed this section. It’s AI generated text and the sources don’t support the sentences they are used to support. However the user who first added this content has restored it with exactly the same wording on September 7. This time they did add extra sources but they are either primary source CIA documents which don’t support the text and primary documents should be avoided. Apart from these, they added books in random places but with no pages so sourcing an entire book. I think they are randomly padding sentences with sources presumably which they found from ChatGPT. This time they made sure not keep chatgpt.com in the URL like the first time. The text also contains some basic factual errors and largely not even that relevant to the CIA. I hope I’m not being too forward by commenting here. Thanks 185.100.70.221 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for pointing it out, as it’s still the same content and lacks consensus to re-add, I’ve removed it. Appreciate the heads up. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Swatjester, hope everything’s alright. I recently created a page on the 9M318 missile, as you probably know. Could you please guide me on what more can be done with the current article? There’s also some additional information online that could be added rather than just redirecting it. Jesus isGreat7 12:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Redirecting it. That’s what should be done. There will never be sufficient independent content to justify a separate page for the 9M318 missile. It’s only fired by the Buk missile system and has no independent capability or functionality outside of said system. At least one of the sources used in the spinoff article is a generally unreliable source, and in general, there’s no useful information there that wouldn’t be better displayed as part of the table of variants on the main Buk article. I’d suggest self-reverting it back to the redirected version, but regardless I’ve asked for greater input from other editors. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
All the official sources claim it is a submachine gun including the manufacturer and the military that requested for the development. Please show me official sources that claims the gun categorized as carbine or assault rifle. And the source you used for “carbine” is K1A1 which has longer barrel than the original version. Kadrun (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles do not have any requirement to follow “official” sources; our standard is “reliable sources”. This is a core content guideline, so it’s rather concerning that you’re unfamiliar with that. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is that mean I can bring up the sources from ROK MOD, developer interview, etc, to roll back it as submachine gun? They are more creditable than guns.com? Kadrun (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- No, it means that you can provide reliable sources for discussion and attempt to build consensus on the talk page for language that indicates that while it’s technically rifle and is referred to as such by independent reliable sources, the manufacturer refers to it as an SMG. How the manufacturer chooses to market it does not change the fact that it is by definition technically an assault rifle and carbine, and that other reliable sources refer to it that way. “Official” sources are no more creditable than guns.com; arguably less so, in this case, particularly if they are primary sources or governmental sources with potential bias or conflicts of interest that may affect their reliability. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Do you realize guns like CAR-15 and AKS-74U were originally classified as submachine gun when they first appear? Also the primary user (ROK military – the largest user) says it is submachine gun? You talk about the market yet decide to completely ignore the main operator? Kadrun (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- It’s irrelevant to me — our policies are not based on how national governments choose to market certain things. However, this is still a poor argument — CAR-15 and AKS-74U are both listed as an assault rifle/carbine in our articles. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- What’s the main reason K1 is categorized in rifle class? If that’s based on the ammunition type? Then why is FN P90 categorized as submachine gun? Kadrun (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot believe that I have to explain to an editor with over 7000 edits how WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS works. We categorize things the way that reliable sources categorize things. Reliable sources say that these things are rifles. I’m not playing games of exploring every possible hypothetical for “why other stuff exists”, particularly when you’re repeatedly bringing up examples that disprove your own point (now for the third time; our article on FN P90 explicitly states it’s categorized both as a PDW and a submachine gun, and the article body explains why and provides an abundance of sources). Is your account compromised? Because I’m becoming concerned here, this is basic editing competency that I should not have to be explaining. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- No I am trying to figure out by what standard the weapons is categorized such. So based on your explanation, everything is “general consensus” w/o any or particular fixed guidelines. Kadrun (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes; Wikipedia does not set fixed guidelines on how weapons are categorized; we operate by consensus based on what reliable sources say. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- No I am trying to figure out by what standard the weapons is categorized such. So based on your explanation, everything is “general consensus” w/o any or particular fixed guidelines. Kadrun (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot believe that I have to explain to an editor with over 7000 edits how WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS works. We categorize things the way that reliable sources categorize things. Reliable sources say that these things are rifles. I’m not playing games of exploring every possible hypothetical for “why other stuff exists”, particularly when you’re repeatedly bringing up examples that disprove your own point (now for the third time; our article on FN P90 explicitly states it’s categorized both as a PDW and a submachine gun, and the article body explains why and provides an abundance of sources). Is your account compromised? Because I’m becoming concerned here, this is basic editing competency that I should not have to be explaining. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- What’s the main reason K1 is categorized in rifle class? If that’s based on the ammunition type? Then why is FN P90 categorized as submachine gun? Kadrun (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- It’s irrelevant to me — our policies are not based on how national governments choose to market certain things. However, this is still a poor argument — CAR-15 and AKS-74U are both listed as an assault rifle/carbine in our articles. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Do you realize guns like CAR-15 and AKS-74U were originally classified as submachine gun when they first appear? Also the primary user (ROK military – the largest user) says it is submachine gun? You talk about the market yet decide to completely ignore the main operator? Kadrun (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- No, it means that you can provide reliable sources for discussion and attempt to build consensus on the talk page for language that indicates that while it’s technically rifle and is referred to as such by independent reliable sources, the manufacturer refers to it as an SMG. How the manufacturer chooses to market it does not change the fact that it is by definition technically an assault rifle and carbine, and that other reliable sources refer to it that way. “Official” sources are no more creditable than guns.com; arguably less so, in this case, particularly if they are primary sources or governmental sources with potential bias or conflicts of interest that may affect their reliability. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is that mean I can bring up the sources from ROK MOD, developer interview, etc, to roll back it as submachine gun? They are more creditable than guns.com? Kadrun (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Back in July you protected Dassault Rafale as ECP under WP:CT/IMH back in Jully, when for Certain Events Involving India the page as a whole was subject to extensive disruption. Since then things seem to have simmered down, and while parts of the page are under the mandatory-ECR of the IMH part of WP:CT/SA, most of the article isn’t. I believe reducing the protection to semi would be something worth trying, to see if that is enough to handle the overall potential disruption at this time – wondering if you concur? – The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, let’s give it a shot. I suspect the attention to the IMH part has died down somewhat since then, we’ll see if it’s been enough. Template:Pingback ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
