User talk:Panter28

June 2016

Hello, I'm Fitindia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mithat Sancar has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. FITINDIA (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Fitindia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Aziz Sancar has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. FITINDIA (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Kemenche

Please stop. We never use our articles as sources, nor does the existence of someone named whatever prove anything. You need to find a source meetng WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, which really means an academic source. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Mesopotamian campaign

Hello. Please start a discussion on the talk page and establish some consensus for your changes before making further changes to the Mesopotamian campaign article (please see the policy at WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss). The edits you have made have been reverted on several occasions now by several editors (myself included) because of a number of issues. Specifically I don't think you removing referenced information and replacing it with unreferenced and extrapolated information is an improvement, especially not without a discussion of what, if anything, was wrong with what is currently in the article in the first place (your changes may also be original research unless the information is supported by a reliable source and is not acceptable on Wikipedia). As you have done this a few times now I'm assuming you have reasons; however, as you also haven't provided an edit summary it is not clear to me what those reasons are. As such please outline the reasons you wish to make these changes on the talk page and we may be able to come to some agreement. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of referenced information from Panter howitzer

Why did you remove [1] the information again from the Panter howitzer article after I provided a reference to a hardcopy version (including page number) of the reference in question? The reason you gave in your edit summary was "Source doesn't exist"; however, while you are right that the original electronic version of the abstract is no longer available online (its now a deadlink), I was able to obtain a copy of the relevant pages from a hardcopy of Janes Armour and Artillery 2007-2008 from the library yesterday and confirm that it supports the information in the article. As such the reference clearly does exist (you can check the isbn at Worldcat.org if you wish as one means to confirm this). At any rate just because you cannot access a source (as long as it is considered reliable per WP:RS) is not in and of itself a valid reason to remove it from the article. Pls see the relevant policy at WP:VERIFY. Anotherclown (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I note that you have continued to remove this material despite being reverted by several other editors. Be aware that edit warring is considered disruptive and may result in sanctions. You may also wish to review the policy at WP:3RR. Please discuss the matter and attempt to achieve a consensus before making this edit again. I have started a discussion on the talk page and you are free to add your opinion there (and to provide references which support your claim). Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Panter howitzer, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at FH-2000. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for vandalism, as you did at Panter howitzer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Panter howitzer

Sources don't give enough proof to verify. Turkish "MKEK" explain that as it was developed by themselves and there is no any source for it to be proven if helped by oversea companies, so those are just claims and wikipedia isn't the place of claims. I've just sent a message to MKEK if that claim about Panter howitzer and FH-2000(ST Kinetics of Singapore) are related. There is no any source you can found that's officially explained by MKEK. Those are empty claims. So you should wait until MKEK authorities back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panter28 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

As has been explained to you by a couple of editors, if sources disagree then you should be contrasting them in the articles. For instance if an official Turkish source disagrees with Jane's (a reliable source) cite both the sources in the article and contrast their differing opinions. You should not be deleting one source over your preferred version, and stating that Jane's doesn't give enough proof is not a valid argument. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "truth". If a reliable source says something, Wikipedia's job is simply to report that one source says one thing, and another says something else. We don't get to pick and choose which we "think" is correct. Likewise, if others are reverting your changes, you are required to engage them in discussion (usually on the article's talk page) to resolve the situation. Edit warring as you have done is not acceptable. When your block has expired, I encourage you to go to the talk pages of the articles in question and discuss your concerns, rather than continuing to edit war. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Panter28: - : Did you even attempt to obtain a copy of the reference I provided (Janes Armour and Artillery 2007-2008) before reverting? I can't help but be concerned that you wish to remove this information because you don't like it and prefer to present your version of "the facts". I have already stated on the the talk page that if there is a reliable source which says the howitzer was indigenously developed then that can be included too; however, Janes clearly meets the requirements of WP:RS so I don't see a valid rationale for its removal. Also please be aware that threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by editing from a different account as you did here [2] is also against the terms of use, pls see the policy on the use of multiple accounts for improper purposes at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Anotherclown (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Panter Howitzer

People are still continuing the ignorance, they want to add new claims to informations because they're disturbed of the reality and they want to make people's head confused by empty claims of some weapon commenter companies like Jane's.. Who will you believe to? The weapon who made by(MKEK) or the the weapon who commented by(Jane's)?? The Panter Howitzer belongs to MKEK, developed by MKEK, and there is no any source about the claims of Jane's, if there was, only MKEK could explain about that. You can change here but you can't change the youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW0xDq4uy2Y Good luck about your claims, that luck is for not being infamous with the stupidly ignorance :D