User talk:Onekit

Welcome!

Hello, Onekit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Doblox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Doblox[edit]

A tag has been placed on Doblox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Prolog. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Machulishchy air base attack, 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. Prolog (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you focus on this edit indicating the lack of evidence of an attack. But at the same time, there are no reliable sources throughout the article. Links to media that point to messages on social networks. You accept this, ignoring the presumption of innocence. Why do I have to prove the doubt, but there is no evidence of an accomplished incident? A media article without evidence is not a reliable source. Onekit (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the entire article to be completely false and not desirable to be on Wikipedia until evidence of an attack on the plane is provided. Onekit (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reputable sources in the article. You are free to request an edit using any reliable source, but not to include your personal analysis (see WP:V and WP:OR). Prolog (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We talk about proofs now. Who cares about reposts in social networks which was mentioned in mass media. It's not source, it is repost. Do you know difference between repost and source? Onekit (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow reliable sources. If you think quoting a social media post makes a source unreliable, you can start a discussion at WP:RSN or have a look at WP:RSP. Prolog (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of information shouldn't be solely determined by its source. Even a single publication may present both accurate and false information. The crucial factor isn't just the source itself but the supporting evidence for the information. Without evidence, the reliability remains uncertain, regardless of the perceived trustworthiness of the source. The emphasis should be on the information's substantiation rather than relying solely on the reputation of the source. Onekit (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Prolog (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note that only extended-confirmed users are allowed to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]