User talk:Luroe

Welcome!

Hello, Luroe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Swastika. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to White-blue-white flag, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

February 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Kraken Regiment. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing the Balkans or Eastern Europe which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an 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) 00:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

File source problem with File:CAI REVISED FINAL-scaled (2).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:CAI REVISED FINAL-scaled (2).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 11:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of AI Constitution for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AI Constitution is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AI Constitution until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

日期20220626 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Luroe,

When all of the other editors (or most of them) are arguing against your position, it's not effective to take offense at what they are saying and to state repeatedly that something is not PR that they believe is PR. Try to see what they are seeing and address their concerns. If the article can't be rewritten during the time of the deletion discussion to get rid of the problems, you should be arguing for it to be Draftified and moved to Draft or User space where you can continue to improve the content.

When the consensus says "This is X", repeatedly saying "No it's not" is not a persuasive approach if you want this article to exist. These are all experienced editors who know Wikipedia policies and standards and it would be better to listen to what they are saying is a problem and alleviate that problem than fighting them by denying what they say exists, exists. Just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I respond much better to arguments with evidence, not baseless accusations. Luroe (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And AFAIK its not really about consensus, its about how well the arguments support the view and relate to reality, at least according to the primers, and i'm afraid i have seen no actual argument or anything of sorts to support their view, i have doubts on whether they have truly read the article or the sources i have linked, since if they did they would not be saying that.

There might be a million people saying that it is PR, which it is not, but if none of them can provide actual evidence for that then its worth nothing. And my approach is not to simple say "not its not", it is to show that it is not by the way of simply showing them the article, the notability, the sources. Didn't I do that multiple times? It would much better if the person claiming something had to provide the evidence for their claim first and not me constantly trying to prove that i'm not a giraffe instead.

Secondly, even if it was PR (which i once again assure it is not) that would not be a reason for deletion. Reason for deletion is lack of notability, which is not the case, that would only be a reason for rewriting. Secondly, as the Wikipedia rules for deletion go they must first provide evidence and arguments for why they believe the deletion would be necessary and more appropriate if another alternative have been suggested, im afraid they have not done that either. So im afraid they DONT know the Wikipedia rules. Luroe (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:CAI REVISED FINAL-scaled (2).jpg

A tag has been placed on File:CAI REVISED FINAL-scaled (2).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)