User talk:Kuru666

Welcome!

Hello, Kuru666, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Defense of the Redoute Ruinée[edit]

Hello, Kuru666,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Defense of the Redoute Ruinée should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense of the Redoute Ruinée .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Defense of the Redoute Ruinée. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of Articles[edit]

Once an article has been named and edited by other editors you cannot just decide to move it to another name it has to follow WP:COMMONNAME and title naming guidelines. As there are no English language sources for this place and it is the local name we should use as per WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Your editing is coming across as decidedly anti-French and you may need to be careful with that such as this edit summary "The engagement can be found only in french sources,i don't think it's appropriate for it to be here". Just so you don't get the wrong idea I live in France but am English so I don't have an axe to grind. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Military history[edit]

Hello Kuru666! Thank you for your contributions to military history-related articles.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors who are also working on military history topics, please take a look at the WikiProject Military history—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please add your username here, and a project coordinator will soon be along to welcome you. If you're not sure about joining, why not sign up to receive our monthly newsletter, The Bugle? It is a great way to get a feel for the project. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Domdeparis. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Italian invasion of France, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Porta Littoria for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Porta Littoria is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Porta Littoria until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions[edit]

Greetings, friend! You probably logged into today to find roughly twenty notifications informing you that your edits have been reverted. I apologize if that caused you any undue alarm. Earlier today, a fellow contributor raised concerns that your recent contributions may not be up to Wikipedia's quality standards, and after examining them, I concurred and reverted most of them. All editors are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia—its contributions like yours that make Wikipedia the valued resource it is today—but there are some things I would ask that you keep in mind as you do so.

Any time you change the information in an article, you must cite a reliable source. This includes when the information you change wasn't cited previously. Offline sources are accepted in good faith, but you should keep in mind that they are likely to be more-closely scrutinized.
Wikipedia speaks in the voice of secondary sources so as to avoid unverifiable original research. For the most part, this means that we say what the source in exactly the manner it says it. Writing your own thoughts on a subject and attributing statistics or other details to sources will likely be accused of misrepresenting the sources and inserting your own point of view, because on Wikipedia, that's what it is. It's a very different type of writing from that which you'll find just about everywhere else.
Wikipedia is neither activist nor a platform for activism. We strive for the preservation and dissemination of knowledge, but we limit ourselves to that knowledge supported by reputable mainstream sources. This means that if your perspective is small minority, it is generally not suitable for Wikipedia.
Try to clean up after your edits. It didn't seem to normally be a problem, but edits like this make a lot of work for other editors to fix. Everyone makes mistakes, we understand that. If you look through my editing history, you'll quickly find that there are times where I'll save a large change and then need to make four more edits to clean it up. But simply re-reading your changes goes a long way towards keeping the project clean and easily readable.

Your editing seems to display an anti-French, pro-Italian bias. What you believe about France or Italy is not of particular interest to anyone here, but we kindly ask that you do your best to speak in a neutral manner. In particular, rather than saying that a party's actions have this or that quality, just describe the details of said action. If it indeed has that quality, it will be obvious to the reader. Editing that seems to be primarily intended to promote a specific view quickly veers on tendentious, and if disruptive enough may lead to your editing privileges being revoked.
Anyway, that was a lot of information. Please let me know if you have questions about any of this information, any of my edits, or why any particular one of yours didn't seem up-to-standards to me. Just drop a note on my talk page or reply here and ping me, and I'll do my best to respond as promptly as possible. Thank you for your time, and happy editing! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru666, we adhere to the WP:NPOV - neutral point of view - policy here which you need to familiarise yourself with. You also need to communicate with the editors who are warning you about your editing. Failure to do either of these may lead to administrator action, including suspension of the ability to edit. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Second Battle of the Alps for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Second Battle of the Alps is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Battle of the Alps until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Italian invasion of France, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Italian invasion of France. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources at Great Siege of Malta[edit]

Hi, to answer to your question at Great Siege of Malta, i would say that Wikipedia goes with what reliable sources say, so, per WP:VER, you need to cite sources for your edits. cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru666: Can you clarify what was the role of the Italian states in the 1565 siege? The sources you added ("Regio Typographeo:Historiae patriae monumenta" and "Caroline P. Murphy:Isabella dè Medici") are not clear. I'm not an expert on the siege, but as far as I know the following were involved in the siege: the Ottoman invaders, the Hospitaller and Maltese defenders, and the Spanish relief force. I am not aware of the roles other states had in the siege, and if we are adding them to the infobox the article should at least mention their roles.

This might also be of interest to Domdeparis (talk · contribs).

Thanks and regards, --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I am greatly interested in the reply. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer had better be good because you have received a final warning about adding unsourced or improperly sourced material and the book is available on gogle and nothing I have found backs up this statement. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: As you have already warned this editor about his editing I was wondering if you could maybe help us here as this is getting a bit out of hand. cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kuru666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i got blocked for really doing nothing wrong,my edits were all either minor or had things that should have been added, obviously with proper sources with them, all from books i've read

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, I cannot unblock you at this time. Please see wp:42. Please affirm that you will cite any content you add to one or more of the books you have read or otherwise. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would like to ask this editor to note the purpose of an infobox as per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and to "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." The information in an infobox especially the flags and casualty figures should not be in contradiction to the text. If nothing in the main text is said about certain forces participating in battle, or that it was a particular side's victory or the levels of casualties this should firstly be added to the main text (correctly sourced of course) and then eventievenadded to the infobox which is not an obligatory element of an article. As an example they should not decide to put their preferred country or commander at the top of the list without some logic in referral to Template:Infobox military conflict eg "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command." Dom from Paris (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked out one of the articles written by this user Second Battle of the Alps and I have some serious concerns about the facts included notably the composition of the different forces. The article as written by this editor gives the impression that the battle was fought between French and Italian troops and partisans from both sides where as in fact the sources that I found and also some which were cited in the article give them as roughly half German and half Italian Talk:Second_Battle_of_the_Alps#French_forces_preparing_to_fight_the_Allies. I have pinged the original blocking admin and a user who was disappointed in my actions in dealing with this editor to have a look at the article and the sources, both of these editors are members of the military history project. If this block is lifted I do not believe they should be allowed to continue to edit in the area of military history. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]