User talk:85.103.50.211

May 2021

Hello, I'm Ken Tony. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Operation Spring Shield, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Ken Tony. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Chuka Chief_talk 14:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reliable sources and Original Research in relation to content added to Operation Spring Shield

Hello,

I have reverted your contributions to Operation Spring Shield, as the source you have used, [1] would require you to do original research - that is to personally and directly count the images in the video, and to determine if that supports the evidence you claim it does. That is a violation of our no original research policy - wikipedians cannot be asked to determine if for example, the source is using a manipulated video, or that the source evidence may be fabricated by an interested party. In short - unless a reliable source can confirm this claim, we cannot accept it as a reference.

If you still believe that the source you provide is reliable, the best place to gain consensus for that would be at the reliable sources noticeboard - you can open a new discussion and present why you believe that the source is reliable and not original research.

Best, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 07:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Portal:Current events/2021 June 1, you may be blocked from editing. Serols (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Poorly sourced content

As I said at RSN, if you find poorly sourced content at Wikipedia that you feel needs to be dealt with, you should start a discussion about removing it, or just try removing it outright with an edit summary explaining the problem (and then discuss if that fails). It's not to try and add more poorly sourced material. I have removed the content you raised at RSN since it does seem to be a problem. If you had simply pointed out the problem at the beginning and engaged in discussion on the actual problem i.e. that some content was poorly sourced, this could likely have been dealt with simply maybe without needing a RSN discussion and definitely without you being blocked. To be clear, the problem is always that we have poorly sourced content in the first place. It's never that we lack other poorly sourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

---