User talk:Alexander Pastukh

WikiGuide Welcome

Hello Alexander Pastukh. Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thank you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration process enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users should understand and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.	Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.	Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.	How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.	Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.	Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance	Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
This is your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss things with them. At the end of your messages you must put your signature by signing with four ~~~~ (just as I have done) or by pressing the button in the editor bar as shown here in the picture. By the way, you don't need to sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. My name is Buster7. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information. Good Luck editing!

```Buster Seven Talk 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You have been edit warring over the content of the article called Continuation War. The only reason I have not blocked your account is because you may not be aware of WP:3RR. A repetition of rapid reverts without and explain of your edits on the talk page and a genuine attempt to reach a consensus with other editors, will lead to administrative actions. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You MUST engage in conversation on Talk:Continuation War about the changes you have made to Continuation War and in good faith try to reach a consensus to make those edits before you make any more changes to that article. -- PBS (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive

I have reverted your last edit to Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive. It was another breach of WP:3RR. Before you make another edit to Continuation War or Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive you must discuss your edits on the talk page and either convince they you are correct or try to reach a compromise with any editors who disagree with you (see dispute resolution). See also the Wikipedia essay of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

-- PBS (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited changes to cited information

Hello. In case you didn't know, if information has a footnote next to it giving the source, then that information is known as cited information. In other words, if it says 52, and gives a citation, then the citation is meant to be for the number being 52. It is very unhelpful for someone to then change 52 to 51.

If you have good sources for the number being 51, then the right thing to do is to change it, and add a citation for it being 51 not 51. Please use the footnotes to explain, that Source A says it is 52 and Source B says it is 51.

In your edits[1][2] to the article on Operation Barbarossa you changed cited information without any explanation. Do not worry. I have reverted your last edit, just as another editor reverted your first one.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea for you to edit your changes into the strength and casualties sections in the Great Patriotic War articles that you are editing? You could then have the infobox as a summary or a conclusion?

The advantage of such a section would be that you could put in what you believe to be the correct figures - with citations, but also have the alternative figures, which are also cited. If you have sources that explain why one set of figures are to be preferred to the other set, you could put those explanations in the section, with citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not just revert the changes other people have made after your edits to the articles on Battle of Moscow‎, Battle of Stalingrad‎, Battle of Kursk‎. It would be better if you added your alternative figures to a section marked casualties (with citations).

If you have reliable sources that state why some casualty figures are to be preferred to others, please add the information to the section on casualties (with citations).--Toddy1 (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I've refered to the sources in Kursk and Moscow battles. As for Stalingrad, there are no Hungarians and Croatioans mentioned in the Axis strengths and their casualties as well. Alexander Pastukh (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not. For example with Kursk article, you altered the loss number from ~200 000 to ~500 000 without any regard of the used citation, next you changed a cited tank loss number from 720 to 1600 (yes, you gave another citation but that is not reason enough to erase existing data, especially when the existing data was much more recent). And as a cherry on the top you erased cited values (lost guns). Which unfortunately makes your edits nothing but vandalism unless you can actually provide sources for the changes you made and not erase all information which you happen to see as contradictory. Your changes will be reverted unless you do so, alternative would be for you to take part constructively via relevant talk pages into improving the articles instead of disrupting the articles. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting. You have been deleting cited information from articles, and in some cases replacing it with uncited new information - often leaving the citations in place so that it looks like the citations are for the new information.

We do not mind you adding new information, providing you cite it correctly. But stop deleting good stuff that is already there.

You may well have a good case for preferring your information. Find reliable sources that back up your opinions, and then cite the arguments in those sources in the sections on casualties in the articles. It is then up to other people to find reliable sources with counter-arguments, which they can cite.

Edit warring about the infobox is not the answer.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI -notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ape89 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now archived -- PBS (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This block was for 48 hours it has now ended. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is depressing that instead of taking the advice given to you, you simply did 6 more reverts:

13:22, 21 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-58)‎ . . Battle of Kursk ‎ (Undid revision 493005211 by Wanderer602 (talk))
13:21, 21 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . Battle of Stalingrad ‎ (Undid revision 493005180 by Wanderer602 (talk))
13:19, 21 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-84)‎ . . Siege of Leningrad ‎ (Undid revision 492992780 by Jaan (talk))
13:18, 21 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+36)‎ . . Battle of Moscow ‎ (Undid revision 492994972 by Jaan (talk))
13:17, 21 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+639)‎ . . Continuation War ‎ (Undid revision 493183503 by Wanderer602 (talk))
13:16, 21 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-5)‎ . . Polish–Russian War ‎ (Undid revision 493121257 by 212.244.35.196 (talk))

The way to win your case is to edit the casualties sections of five Great Patriotic War articles you contest. Put in your preferred data (without deleting existing data). Add statements from sources that explain why data X is better than data Y, giving citations.

The alternative is to revert, and be reverted back, and then get blocked again.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]