User talk:Nghtcmdr

Welcome!

Hi Nghtcmdr! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.
Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Chengguan (agency), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Additionally, please seeWP:RSPISNOT Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American military personnel killed in the Battle of Mogadishu (1993)

A tag has been placed on Category:American military personnel killed in the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell another editor to use the article talk page without you starting a discussion there first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I told the other editor to start the discussion as required by policies because they have been the ones adding and re-adding disputed content, but that is something they have so far refused to do. Can you help with this? Nghtcmdr (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nghtcmdr

Be patient. I have already responded
Your edits were disruptive and you had no evidence nor consensus to back up your claims. You made claims that were extremely inaccurate, with the only evidence being lack of mention on the WP:RSPLIST(Which, a source not apperaring doesn't mean anything).
"Disputed content" is a huge over-exaggeration. You are the only person who is disputing the content, which is largely due to ignorance of policies and sources.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Ford Super Duty et al

In light of the WP:ANI report you filed, I'm looking into the interactions between you and Thehistorianisaac. Would you care to explain what substantive reason you have for this edit? To be clear, I'm looking for something about the content of the text, not WP:HOUNDING or other behavioral rationales. —C.Fred (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax and sourcing was deficient, and the material was about law enforcement/defense which is a topic that I have taken an interest in since I started editing Wikipedia again in light of the 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators. Nghtcmdr (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand on how you found the sourcing deficient. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources either weren't in English or were state-controlled or influenced. Policy says English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance, which was the case here. Nghtcmdr (talk)

You reverted my changes to the List of military special forces units article because you thought they were too broad [1] even though I had given reasons [2] similar to the ones I have provided to justify my Ford edits for why I made them. Can you explain which and how policy applies here? Nghtcmdr (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nghtcmdr

For the Ford Super Duty, all sources were reliable.

Just that a source is in english doesn't mean it can't be used. Same thing for the state published sources. Please revert your controversial changes.

Same thing for the spec ops article.

You have yet to establish that the previous sources were reliable and even if you did, policy says English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance, which was the case here. Nghtcmdr (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nghtcmdr The sources I used were highly reputable and fall under NEWSORG. All sources that fall under these categories are reliable till questioned [3].

WP:NONENG DOES NOT mean "remove non english sources". It simply means "prioritize finding english sources". You are delibrately misinterpeting policy, and leaving out the fact that you removed sourced content.

I will report this as more of your WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred

May I ask if I am free to revert the controversial changes? I don't want to get banned for edit warring, but the rationale is practically a policy that (at best) is misunderstood. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nghtcmdr

Out of good faith(and the fact that you are new and likely don't know the policies completely) I'm gonna give some advice:

It's okay to misinterpret or not know policies completely, but continuing to do so after other editors explain said policies is not okay
Not a policy, but generally speaking I would avoid removing sourced content unless it is either deprecated(even so depends on context) or is self published.
If your edits have been reverted, read why they have been reverted first.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred

There was proper sourcing, which @Nghtcmdr here has failed to acknowledge and has (on multiple articles, particularly ones that I have edited, so I highly suspect this is ironically a WP:HOUNDING situation on their end) deleted info with proper sources(with a completely false claim that non-english sources cannot be used). I have filed a previous ANI report [4], which shows that Nghtcmdr has done similar behavior before of Edit warring and harrasing me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, on the ANI, multiple other editors have also spoken out against Nghtcmdr's incivility towards other editors. The lack of admin response is really questionable. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Nghtcmdr! Your additions to Army Academy of Border and Coastal Defence have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]