Szeklertravel

Hello, Szeklertravel, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 15:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

December 2022

Hello, I'm Moops. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 64th Fighter Aviation Corps, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

February 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joint Task Force 2. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - wolf 15:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Added note

Hello, I realize you're new, but the above warning is an unfortunate pre-requisite when you keep editing the same content repeatedly, instead of discussing (per WP:BRD). You re-added the WP:Youtube source, again, but as a WP:SPS, youtube is typically not considered reliable. You then added a second source, I could not find where in that documemt the content you added was supported. You are leaving WP:Bare url refs, instead of completing them per WP:CITE. Eg: for a video (that is considered reliable), it helps to include the timestamp of the portion that you are relying on, (especially for a video that is almost 3 hours long, and a "part 1" at that!), for pdf's (and books, etc), a page number is helpful.

Anyway, once you were reverted, had you enquired on the talk page, this could've been explained then. Please read through the links that I have added for you here, as well as the 'welcome' template at the top of this page, (and the links it contains as well), there is a lot of useful information there for new and inexperienced users. If you have any questions, you can contact the Help Desk anytime. Thanks - wolf 16:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Didn't mean to be annoying. Just one question regarding the YouTube source. Is it because it's YouTube, or the person interviewed (Dallas Anderson) isn't reliable as a source? Would a CNN or BBC YouTube video be considered a reliable source? Szeklertravel (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I also added the timestamp and the video on the talk page for anyone to see. It's a bit foreign to me, but i hope it's basic enough for people to understand --Szeklertravel (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A few things; once an edit has been reverted and a discussion started on the article talk page, you should not continue to attempt to re-add the disputed edit to the article, until the discussion has led to a resolution. You have again re-added your edit, before I or anyone else had even responded there. I posted some links above and suggested you read through them, but it appears you haven't done that (especially the links for edit warring, as you keep re-aeding your edit, and the links for WP:SPS & WP:Youtube, as you continue to re-add the youtube ref. (I also note that your latest edit didn't include the jcs.mil ref. Not that it would justify re-adding that content again, but it at least appearred to be a reliable source... I wonder why you dropped it?) Also, adding a time-stamp doesn't automatically make the youtube reliable video suddenly reliable. You would know that if you read the links. I the time-stamp was just part of the issue in general with your bare url refs.

You need to self-revert and wait until the discussion you started on the article talk page concludes (typcially with an agreement between the first two editors, or a consensus among several editors. Aside from the disruption caused by repeated attempts to re-add that content, there is also an WP:ONUS on you as the editor adding disputed content to ensure it is supported by a reliable sourcing and a consensus. Lastly, while edit summaries are useful in explaining an initial edit, they do not justify repeated edits of the same content with comments like "I hope this is ok", etc... that is what talk pages are for. And, I realize this may seem complicated, with the processes and rules, but they are necessary to try and keep articles stable and the project reliable. Otherwise, this site would just be another Fandom. - wolf 00:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)