User talk:Szolnok95

May 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Panther tank have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Read section 9.2 of the book at page 127 with 200km + Panzer Tract series by the same author repeat the 200km Denniss (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

Your addition to Panther tank has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. (Hohum ^@) 17:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the already used book on that page, and I quoted from the same. So what is the problem?Szolnok95 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

Your edit to M4 Sherman has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Loafiewa (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to M4 Sherman has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Loafiewa (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you mark please, which part was copyrighted? Because all of them copied/written be me. Expcept the Soviet M4A2 sentence. And I not even used that book, what is mentioned for copy right...https://tubquaferocheer.ga/m26m46-pershing-tank-1943-53-new.php So please, mark, which part was copyrighted. Because my guessing is that: the marked M26 book, used the older book as a source what I used for the sherman. I will delete or rewrite the copyrighted sections if its right! But this book: M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943–53 (New Vanguard) Paperback, released in 2000. And I used an book what i released in 1978.....Richard Pearce. Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank.

Sincerely,Szolnok95 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio report [1] indicates that there is a 96% overlap between the given website and what you wrote. Information you add to Wikipedia has to be written in your own words. Loafiewa (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How in the hell it can be the same if I not used that book? Can you show me page or something what is 96% same with that? This is a little bit ridiculous... I used 4-5 books, + archive, and you say its 96% same with 1 book? I hope you understand what a nonsense what you wrote.Szolnok95 (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the copyvio report, which goes over it sentence by sentence. Loafiewa (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be f*cking agry with you now? The 96% similarity is NOtHING do do with my SECTION......................... https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1046403006&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftubquaferocheer.ga%2Fm26m46-pershing-tank-1943-53-new.php ........ I hope you'll admit, you made a mistake.....Szolnok95 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marder III[edit]

Your edits there border vandalism. Production figures in the article are sourced to books by reputable authors and experts on these vehicles and not that histotainment presenter on youtube. I have no idea where he got his conversion numbers from but those are entirely wrong. I would really like to know where the one thousand 38t tanks for M conversion would have come from and how they would convert the entirely different chassis to an M configuration.--Denniss (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I already asked him about it, but believe me, he is Right. Szolnok95 (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, he is utterly rong. Heck he did even forgot the 7.62cm Marder in production section. --Denniss (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He answered for me, and looked over the books. He mentioned, in the first book:

Andorfer, Volker; Block, Martin; Nelson, John: Nuts & Bolts: Vol. 18: „Marder III“ Panzerjäger 38(t) für 7,5 PaK 40/3 (Sd.Kfz. 138). Part 2: Ausführung H & 7,5 cm Pak 40 mot. Zug. Heiner F. Duske: Neumünster, Germany, 2004, p. 7

The Ausf H had 2 column: Produced / converted.

In the second book:

Andorfer, Volker; Block, Martin; Nelson, John: Nuts & Bolts: Vol. 17: „Marder III“ Panzerjäger 38(t) für 7,5 PaK 40/3 (Sd.Kfz. 138). Part 1: Ausführung M. Heiner F. Duske: Neumünster, Germany, 2003, p. 10-11

The Ausf M had Produced&Converted column, and he believed its the same method produced / converted like in the first book. He looked over and it turned out, it was 1 column. So he made a mistake. So he said: "So probably for Wikipedia: "numbers built: 941-942 and likely at least 68 converted"."

Szolnok95 (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Panzer Tracts 7-2 (far newer and far better researched by THE german tank experts) no Ausf.M conversions were made. No idea what chassis they would use for them. Flakpanzer were still in use so was Grille and their ammo carriers. --Denniss (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re Panther[edit]

An article discussing the Panther does not need to tell the reader what oil it used and how often it needed to be changed unless it had a direct and significant bearing on the way the tank was used or performed. By way of comparison have a look at Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch (a Featured Article). It's also best to avoid primary sources (eg manuals and contemporary reports) per WP:PRIMARY and stick to what secondary sources makes of them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. If many ppl are interested in the WW2 vehicles like me, why the wiki should not show them every detiails, when me or others do the research instead of the wiki? It's free for the wiki, and who want to know more, have the benefits from it. 2.Why I should not use the original WW2 reports? o.O Every historian using them for their books.Szolnok95 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If the book writers not using primary soruces, then what? Or they read all of them and making a subjective opinion about it? Then that is no history anymore, because not showing the reports objectively.Szolnok95 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." is the basic statement. And this is explained further in

So you can use an original report to back a statement like "an engineer described the X as Y." But if you have secondary source you don't need the primary. You can add a link to the original for readers if they want to read the original, but if it's a foreign language then the utility is quite low. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion/detail

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. [Content] merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already wrote my answer, but It got deleted because you edited the page.

So: I accept what you wrote, but the wikipedia should count with 1 thing: secondary source can be wrong by human mistake or by direct way(sadly).

I'll try to find english source, where it needed. (You could see if I could, I used both english and german source)

Sincerely, Roland_HUNterSzolnok95 (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the mig-29 talk page, then my corrections and source. Thank you! Due to double standard bureaucracy, please do not warn me. Szolnok95 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you because you will be blocked if you exceed three reverts. If you'd rather not be warned before being blocked, that's your choice.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is my choice to not let a myth get off the wikipedia page, and it hasn't been off so far because the math isn't a good enough resource?

Please...

It's not my lack of understanding that got me 3 revert. Szolnok95 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being right is not an exemption to the three revert rule. It's a brightline policy; you need to get consensus for your desired changes on the article talk page before restoring the disputed content.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And I did find sources. Job done.

Thank you for the early warning. Szolnok95 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: And the same revert here again. BilCat (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Mikoyan MiG-29 for a period of 48 hours for violation of the three revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Szolnok95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Is this a joke right? I brought sources, I proved my point, he/she is not agree, and reverting it without counter claim, and I get blocked? Szolnok95 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Your recent editing history at Untermensch shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to support my deletion with arguments, which can be found on the Untermensch page.

First of all, I would like to respond to the source you raise:

I have obtained that book and on page 686 of the book it refers to the Untermensch book.

It mentions that Himmler portrays the Soviet population as inferior people.

Where, in a related: DIRECT mis-explanation, I have deleted this from this wikipedia page.

Why?

Because this statement does NOT exist in the book Untermensch by Himmler. This makes me question Peter Longerich's book, since he is already stating a false "fact" here.

Furthermore I found the quote you cited with the source index 78.

Which refers to this:BAB, NS 19/1740

What is BAB, NS 19/1740?

Order of the RFSS to the HSSPF Ostland and the Chief of the WVHA, 21.6.1943, BAB NS 19/1740, fol. 20.

In Vilnius proper, the first plans to restrict employment of Jewish labour to large work forces and limited

fields of action had been contemplated as early as November 1942: KTB Wwi Kdo Kauen, 4.11.1942,

BA-MA RW 30/19, fol. 14.

No closer source or document is presented that mentions the 500,000 "sub-human" people. The book itself makes no mention of the 500,000 discussed above.

So there is no mention of any:

Who found out about this 'secret' order.

Who translated it

When the order was decrypted:

Who sent it,

To whom the message was sent

When it was sent

Without this, how can any fake be considered real?

I might add, after the war, many "secret" orders turned out to have been fabricated after the war.

Moreover, it is contradictory that everyone knew who was called sub-human. Here for themselves, why would they have specifically marked this?

It's like specifically naming the part for my car mechanic. He knows what his name is, it's his job.

Without factual sources, please undo (delete) the part I deleted.

Historical objectivity deserves it. Szolnok95 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Untermensch[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Untermensch. 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. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expect thatShadowwarrior8 will also get a warning for putting back things that are not in the book. And deleting things that I have so far pointed out and justified.

I await your reply. Szolnok95 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

At least one or more of your edits in the page Untermenschen have been reverted. While these edits may have been in good faith, they were difficult to distinguish from Disruptive Editing since you have removed large amounts of sourced content backed up by Reliable sources. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions.

Despite multiple warnings you have persisted with your disruptive behaviour. Note that "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason" constitutes Vandalism and may result in the block your account. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh? I did not edited the page after the warning. What is this nonsense? Szolnok95 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Removing encyclopedic content without any reason"

Are u kidding right? I wrote down always my reasons.

This is nonsense ! Outrageous and exclusionary! Szolnok95 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]