User talk:Fabrice Ram

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, Fabrice Ram, 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! Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Airbus A330neo

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Airbus A330neo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German Air Force

Warning icon Do NOT start trying to override community policies for your own personal ideas WP:NOTHERE - Inventory tables are designed in such a way so they can be compatible with all devices. Community standards like WP:IMAGEMOS, are not there, because of specifics to the inventory tables, but because of having too many images in the article "Don't use images or galleries excessively" - If you continue to disruptively edit on Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing - FOX 52 talk! 05:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So ALL equipment inventory of military use excessive imagees?
That's a ridiculous thing, there ia no community guideline that is violated.What about you disruptively editing and deleting accurate informaton? You are preventing progress on this page, so it's the definition of disrupting a page ! Fabrice Ram (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say they didn't warn you! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Woah d000d this article suuuucks! *proceeds to rewrite several tables without any consideration, posting them in talk pages* フロップ · fL0p (er) · quaestiōnēs? 04:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Euroradar CAPTOR

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Euroradar CAPTOR, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into List of wheeled self-propelled howitzer. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
There is a misunderstanding here.
Imagine that you're doing an article listing a certain category of something. You know that many appear in another category referencing something else... Why bothering starting from scratch when a table already contains some elements that will be used?
That doesn't make the history of the other article relevant, and that doesn't make the copy-paste a blind copy paste. So thank ou for the remark, but I don't see at all how this would be relevant to do what you are recommending ! Fabrice Ram (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article was moved to the plural spelling of "howitzers". You then created a new page at the "howitzer" spelling. I had fixed your error, and then you went and updated it erroneously again. Stop doing that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of wheeled self-propelled howitzer

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of wheeled self-propelled howitzer, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Archer Artillery System

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Archer Artillery System, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

minor edits ? unsourced and biased

Reviewing your overall contributions I see that you declare most of them as minor edits. I need to point out that this aint right and is misleading. please review what a minor edit is supposed to be.

Secondly, you must provide a reference for each claim you make on a page. I see that you introduced a lot of unsourced claims on General Dynamics European Land Systems.

Thirdly, It does look like you may have been employed- paid to do this. You should identify yourself as such, declare the COI and ask others to edit, if you have such a COI. Wuerzele (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not paid, the minor edits are minor edits... Fabrice Ram (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good excuse for doing whatever you want in somewhere more of your own property... let's say a blog. You seem to like military stuff, just open your site or blog and dump all that bias there. You'll end up getting away with whatever you add there. I promise. ;) フロップ · fL0p (er) · quaestiōnēs? 04:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop marking your edits as minor

Hello,

It seems like you've ignored @Wuerzele's suggestions and are continuing to misidentify edits as minor. These edits (645, 838, 367 bytes) are quite large and often make significant changes to the page. I'd like to remind you that minor edits are well defined; they are intended to mark spelling corrections, copyedits, minor formatting changes, and the like. They are not intended for large content changes like those in your edits.

More concerning is the apparent lack of sources for a majority of your content. I would request that you provide more accurate sources for edits in the future and retroactively source your edits when possible.

Regards, Catalyzzt (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of military transport aircraft

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of military transport aircraft, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7 Dec 2023

WARNING. Please do not WP:EDITWAR as you did at List of military transport aircraft and repeat an edit which another editor has reverted. If you continue to do so then your account may be sanctioned. Per WP:BRD (Be Bold-Revert-Discuss), you are advised to open a discussion about your proposed change, on the article's associated talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of Airbus A350 orders and deliveries

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Airbus A350 orders and deliveries, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of equipment of the Swiss Army

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of equipment of the Swiss Army, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Archer Artillery System, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Citing websites using random Tweets as sources is not in line with WP:RS, and neither is restoring entirely unsourced sections. TylerBurden (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summary table is awesome. You decided to remove it for what reason? Fabrice Ram (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is a section using zero references "awesome"? TylerBurden (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a summary of what's below... All the references are below... Fabrice Ram (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already summarized in that section, content with two or six lines of text need to be summarized in a table? Placing it on top of the actual content that is already succinct is not in line with MOS:TABLES, it's a waste of space. TylerBurden (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are also repeatedly adding this unreliable source that uses a random Twitter user: "@T_90_M Russian main battle tank. 48 tons of steel and sex appeal. SAFO = Stalin Apologist Fellas Organisation." as its reference. Doing this with content relating to a contentious topic makes it even worse. You will be reported if you continue, so consider that a final warning. TylerBurden (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your damn problem with a summary table?
This is ridiculous ! Plus you are contradicting yourself on what the problem is...
You are removing an old table that has been accepted for months. Are you the king of the edit?
What space waste is it?
Don't you think that sometimes summaries bring support in reading? Fabrice Ram (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are violating WP:CIVIL as well. A table taking up 7,374 bytes of the article is not remotely necessary for content that is already effectively summarized in its own section, especially not when it is badly plastered in front of the actual content it is meant to summarize, that is quite basic Wikipedia manual of style regardless of how "awesome" you personally find it. You need to read up on both WP:MOS and WP:RS, in particular the latter, because attempting to use "@T_90_M Russian main battle tank. 48 tons of steel and sex appeal. SAFO = Stalin Apologist Fellas Organisation." as a Wikipedia reference is the worst editing I've seen on a contentious topic in a long time and it's exactly the kind of thing that can get you topic banned if not outright blocked. TylerBurden (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, 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.

TylerBurden (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of active Italian Navy ships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of equipment of the Swiss Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAMM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer

Hello Fabrice Ram, I thought it way better to engage in Talk than just dive back into the Boxer (Armoured Fighting Vehicle) article and revert your edits back to mine. In quite a few years on Wiki I have learnt that explaining ones thought processes, and the reason behind a series of edits, is often way way better than just doing, re-doing, re-doing, and then getting into all manner of fuss and disagreement and ending up attracting the attention of the 'Wikipedia Police.' Once they have their claws into you, they're in...

Anyway, my edits you reverted, mentioning 0 references. You are correct, and for that I apologise. My editing session was cut short yesterday before I had a chance to get to inserting the references for the changes to Qatar and to the UK. I have full and detailed references for both. I really should have done them as I worked, but you know how it goes, I'm sure.

So, looking ahead, I will revert to my edits today, BUT..., with a full set of citations for all the changes etc I make. I have slides of the current ARTEC Boxer 31 variants offering (from ARTEC), plus the current UK order breakdown (Janes/Hansard), and the current terminology they use. Things like reference to a baseline protected mobility (PM) variant (MIV-PM), and command and control (MIV-CC) and repair/recovery (MIV-REP) variants are no longer used. I expect the designations will change again! I was talking to the UK PM for Boxer at a defence event here in the UK in January, and even he used incorrect terminology! What hope is there for the rest of us!

Sadly though, I cannot use those slides in the Wikipedia article as I don't have the copyright to them. However, and while I'm not sure Wiki would allow this, I could try, and would be happy to let you have sight of them should you have any doubts as too their efficacy. Would you like me to try? In broader terms, my primary source for these latest updates is Janes, the AFV Yearbook and Defence Weekly. I've also succeeded in opening up a line of communication with ARTEC, and I'm currently trying to get them to link their mission module designations to what users actually have. Who has APC A, APC B, APC C and so on... They seem a little reluctant to do that at present. We will see!

Back to the actual Boxer article on Wiki, and as to reducing the amount of text in the UK section of Operators, this forms part of a styling approach to make the article a little more consistent, and maybe more readable with some continuity of style. The German, Lithuanian and Netherlands sections of Operators look great, and serve as a one stop shop for the relevant information in one short and sharp hit. It also seems to be, broadly, more in keeping with the wider Wiki style. Currently, the UK (and Australia) sub-sections contain a little too much waffle that bogs the reader down. Much of this waffle is covered in body text, and text that a reader-reader (if that term makes sense) would take the time to read.

At some point I also aim to make Australia in Operators look more like the better German etc. presentation.

On the Qatar subject, again I do have citation references for the changes I made and I will include those. I removed the 'Qatar might buy... Qatar wants to buy...' stuff as this is speculation and not really Boxer article stuff. Would you agree? There's a Wiki guideline somewhere about crystal ball-type stuff.

In fact, looking ahead, I'm not really sure the entire 'Crystal Ball' potential users bit is even really relevant at all. Maybe that's something to open up to the wider Wiki community. Your thoughts?

One of my key aims with this Boxer article is to clear up what I find to be Wiki's biggest problems with larger more detailed records. I don't know if you find these with the stuff you work on, but a random editor who has a little bit but overall limited subject matter knowledge will grab an update from somewhere, dive in, make it, cite it, and walk away. What they seldom do is check the article through for any and all other little mentions of the subject they updated, and that are now wrong to varying degrees, even if by something as simple as 'will do' becoming 'has done'... And the other one... Just dumping updates in random places that screw up any attempt at style, continuity and readability!

You seem to do quite a bit of Wiki editing of stuff I'm interested in, so our paths may well cross again in the weeks or months to come. Do please 'Talk' if you have any queries, or even issues going forwards. Best SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Thanks for contacting that way, indeed, much more efficient, and better for the quality that we all thrive to.
The potential sales are in my view important in this topic for the readers, as it is a strong indicator of what is going on with that material. The potential sales aren't based on no information but usually on strong indications from concurring information.
As there is a will from Qatar to purchase 8x8 vehicles at the moment, I believe that it is relevant, but I might be wrong.
For the UK, the source is highly problematic due to the lack of source from your side. In that peculiar situation, I trust you for having those information, but I do believe that you need a solution for it, and it would be best to have the solution before confirming the modifications.
BUT as a general rule, this article is highly problematic, and I have started some modifications. It goes in many directions, but I want to implement them at some points.
What if we collaborate and criticise each other's work, and propose the changes in the "Talk" section of Boxer? Major changes should be discussed as a general rule. So we could do it in a smarter non-conflictual way.
Regards, cheers Fabrice Ram (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. Been delayed as if you check the Boxer page out, the Wiki Police have been busy. I've encountered this person before, and while Wiki needs to be managed this person maybe takes it a little to far... I honestly think they sit in a room all day and do nothing other than search out alleged copyright breaches across Wiki. If you can be bothered, look at what was considered a copyright breach on the Boxer page! Compare the difference between what was there, and the source they quoted. If that's copyright infringement then 90% of Wikipedia needs to be taken down! But no matter, as you can't reason with these people and their world is black or white, I rewrote the segment anyway... Part of me thinks that will still be wrong!
Anyway, our stuff...
I think the Boxer article is now way better than when I started on it a few days back, and is on the way to becoming a logical progression of a read. There's still a bit to do though, I agree. I tend to work on a article, and not bounce around between many. Just my style.
I'm best part through making sure there are no contradictions in text, and that the body text as best it can flows chronologically, and with only the necessary repetition. Doing that has brought most sections in line. Next I'll tackle the Design section and just tidy that up with a few updates here and there.
I've the citations to hand to revert the UK part we have spoken about and may do that later today if I have time. I'm not convinced the Qatar stuff is really relevant, but I do have the acquisition of ten units to add there.
With regard to the Potential orders section, if I were writing this as a history or feature, I'd not include it. However, I'm not, it's not mine as such, and Wiki is all about compromise and working together. So I agree, let's leave it and if we encounter the Crystal Ball Police (and they're out there I'm sure...) we can deal with it then!
I do think Competitions lost / potential sales not concluded should be deleted at some point as it's really not relevant, and no other comparable Wiki article has a similar section that I can find, and I'm not so sure that what is essentially a potted history of requirements that went to others for other products (in most cases) is Boxer-worthy material. It should probably be in the article about whatever won the given requirement?
One thing I will revise shortly is the 38 more Boxer the Netherlands allegedly will buy. Spoke to my PoC at the Netherlands MoD and that's fake news. That said, Google struggled to locate anything beyond one badly translated source. The Netherlands has a desire to up-gun some Boxer, and is looking at an EW variant, but that's about that for now.
Best. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Fabrice_Ram"