Talk:Russian patrol ship Vasily Bykov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unnamed section 1[edit]

it seems that this ship is already "out of combat" https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/t8maks/russian_warship_was_hit_near_odessa_tonight/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:641A:F500:6811:1364:C663:52BB (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute[edit]

To clarify, I've approved nothing, have no power to approve anything(admins do not approve edits), and don't wish to take a side here, but the text in dispute must be discussed here. Ping BlackFlanker Stjoan1. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot could you please intervene? Or link somebody who is responsible for dealing with internet trolls? This is becoming just more and more ridiculous. Just look at the diffs I provided bellow. BlackFlanker (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm going to keep putting it back unless somebody has something objective to say about it. BlankFlanker appears to have a history of disputes with no vested interest in the page other than it doesn't meet his subjective approval. Stjoan1 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stjoan1 Instead of edit warring please use proper channels such as dispute resolution. It is not required that an editor have a vested interest in the topic they are editing about, the opposite is actually preferred. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is the problem. He is not editing at all. All he is doing is undoing revisions with subjective reasoning. I'm going to let BlankFlank initiate dispute resolution. This is his headache. Not mine. Stjoan1 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stjoan1 because your edits has absolutely no encyclopedic value. All you do is repeatedly vandalising the article with the same vulgar statements the Ukrainian propaganda came with. Why the article about the Vasily Bykov patrol boat should include these vulgar statements anyway? Only because someone said it on the video? Or just because of your personal thoughts about Russia and Russians or what? Makes no sence. So far, you are the only one who is repeatedly adding it there, so.
Regarding to the event, there is no single evidence what the Ukrainian forces were firing at since it was obviously night when the event happened and also photos made during the next morning proves absolutely nothing since on those blurry images is barely to see any connection with any Russian ship. All Ukrainian sources claim how the ship was hit or even sunk, but so far did not provide a single evidence for those claims so why should anyone take this seriously? We should better wait until some official statement will be realesed from the side the ship belongs to, or when some actual photos of Vasily Bykov will appear instead of putting just Ukrainian propaganda statements or some patriotic bias into the article. BlackFlanker (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument became mute when you claimed it is Ukrainian propaganda. It is, in fact, a rare sinking of a naval vessel in combat with footage and audio from the gun crew that has been verified. This is what makes it unique. Please stop harassing me and go through the proper resolution channels. Also, the revision that you do support is about the destruction of this vessel by Ukrainian forces. You can't have your cake and it too. You can't support the destruction of the vessel in one paragraph and not support it in another based on the propaganda bug-a-boo. Again, your reasoning is subjective yet again. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, first I tried to warn you on your talk page about your unconstructive edits on Vasily Bykov patrol boat article as seen in this diff, but all I got was just a personal attack on me and even some bizzare attempts to fake my statements, as seen in the following diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4
So what is this all about? BlackFlanker (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Just refute my claim about your Ukrainian propaganda argument. If that is the hill you want to dispute on then any mention of the attack on this ship that you do support is hypocritical and again, subjective, subjective, subjective! BTW, now you're paranoid. I don't "fake" your statements. I don't even know what that means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjoan1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Stjoan1 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How am I paranoid when you already violated two of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? First WP:CIVIL, when you told me to "go fuck yourself" (proof) after I warned you about your unconstructive edits, and secondly, when you tried to blatantly make it looks like I was saying it to you by adding my username (proof 2). This is clear vioaltion of WP:HOAX. All edits you made on your talk page are clearly visible in the diffs, so you won't fool anyone. BlackFlanker (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also said you would resolve and defend your honor by reporting me to the admins. If you have done that then that is that. I don't know why you keep attacking me. Seems weird. Stjoan1 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still considering it because you obviously just keep ignoring the known facts regarding to this case and also the discussion here. But there are already more experienced editors who pay attention to the article, so let's see what they will say about your unconstructive and unencyclopedic edits. BlackFlanker (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stjoan1: The addition of the quote is not relevant to this article; it is relevant for the Russian warship, go fuck yourself article, where it is already covered. Applodion (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They said nothing to me. In fact, I like the new page setup and references. Big improvement. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were still reverted, so. That speaks for itself. Anyway, I hope this is finally solved by covering that pointless phrase in a different article. BlackFlanker (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You think it is a pointless phrase? Do you think we shouldn't put "Remember the Alamo" or "Come and Get It" in regard to the Texas War of Independence? I mean the Texans are just claiming they said it. Listen, always at least show you are willing to compromise and you wouldn't have to have several paragraphs on your Talk page concerning control. That is the only reason I singled you out of all the editors. Lighten up. Your arguments are old and tired and so is your history. Stjoan1 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, Vasily Bykov entering the port of Sevastopol without a single damage. So yeah, that phrase is totally empty and pointless since now it's pretty clear it was not based on real event but only on Ukrainian state propaganda. I think it was pretty obvious from the beginning as the Ukrainian side was not able to provide a single reliable proof for their claims, but neverthless that was enough for you and your buddies to constantly vandalising two articles here on Wikipedia with unreliable, unconstructive and not encyclopedic content at all, and even breaking several WP policies and guidelines when insulting me for just protecting the truth. All easily provable. So much for your editing skills and credibility. You should be ashamed. BlackFlanker (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So...uh, was it sunk or not? :0 Yekshemesh (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I rent clear from reliable sources Yekshemesh. I just did a news search, and the story hasn't been picked up by the many major news outlets. I would imagine that if the Ukrainians had sunk a ship, it would be major news. Also Stojan1 and Blackflanker. I encourage you to seek conflict resolutionMozzie (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that should be: It isn't clear from reliable sources.Mozzie (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no relieable proof to believe the ship was hit or sunk, Russian officials so far did not release any statement about either those Ukrainian claims or the current ship's status. BlackFlanker (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I find so extremely odd about the situation is the fact that even though only Ukrainian sources claim the sinking/damaging of the Vasily Bykov (making the claim dubious), neither the Russians nor anyone else has tried to refute it either. I mean, it should be easy and benefical for Russia to confirm that a top-modern warship hasn't been sunk, right? IMO, the silence of pro-Russian sources actually suggests that the ship was sunk, even though that would be -as Mozzie rightly points out- so insane that it would/should generate more buzz. Overall, the situation is just odd, and we should leave to status quo be: Listing the ship as active as well as including the claims about its destruction. Applodion (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the ship was half sunk burning off the coast, surely it would have been picked up by satellite imagery and confirmed.Mozzie (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I thought as well, yet nobody has confirmed that the story is fake either (which is just strange). In fact, some U.S. general on Twitter even said that the ship was sunk, though he probably just expressed his own, unsourced opinion (it's not like every general has access to more information than we do). Applodion (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that it isn't being covered because so media outlets aren't in the business of refuting each false claim. Mozzie (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this has been confirmed as untrue by OSINT. I've added more information on it, my question now is should the previous claim be simply removed or is it notable enough to remain? Battlestar59 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Battlestar59: We cannot use Twitter as a source for stuff like this; we have to wait until reliable media reports it before adding this update to the article. Applodion (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough, I just read up on the social media policy. I originally thought it would be good enough considering media often just quote twitter and put it down as "unnamed sources". And it would be nice to put an end to this whole drama. Battlestar59 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Battlestar59: No worries, IvtI 09 has already managed to find a useable source and updated the article. Applodion (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not odd. But the destruction of the ship is just one small part of the war. If they destroyed the corvette than it would no different than all the other Russian equipment that has been destroyed. Russia can't come out and say the ship was damaged or not. That would be admitting a setback or the scope of the war. Russia, unlike the West, is in a constant state of conflict with her perceived enemies and her own people no different than the former USSR and this is part of their plan book, which includes propaganda. They are not going to report any setbacks and we don't have much in the way of Western observations on the ground. Since several people want to rely on media sources the whole thing was picked up originally by the UK Times. The Ukrainians are least reporting on the war in real time to the world. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's alive! https://t.me/moria40k/11964 The Ukraine lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.34.240.174 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the truth came out! BlackFlanker (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see "See Also" section. BTW, it is included in the wikipedia article for the sinking of Russia’s flagship cruiser Moskva along with Vasily Bykov at Snake Island. I had nothing to do with either but leave them alone, for crying out loud. Stjoan1 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva#/media/File:Stamp_of_Ukraine_s1985.jpg Stjoan1 (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

news[edit]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1555524045424279552 (need for proof) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.116.103 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The report in the Express (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1650965/Putin-news-Russian-ship-fire-sea-Crimea-video-pictures-Sevastopol-Ukraine-latest-update) may be acceptable as source, but I think someone entered that a bit too quickly. The newspaper cites H I Sutton, probably his Twitter account (https://twitter.com/CovertShores) but as you can see, he only reposted the picture/video of "something burning", connected with pictures of a ship of this class with white smoke. The latter were from an earlier exercise (smoke screen) probably, and not necessarily connected to the black smoke seen on Aug 4th. And if this black smoke originates from a ship is also highly debatable, Sutton also posted the daily report of the Ukrainian General Staff about Russian casualties, and there is no change in the number of ships/boat destroyed. So all in all it is not even likely that any ship was hit at all, let alone one of this class. Therefore I'm deleting that note that it was hit, for now at least, until some proper confirmation.--OBrian (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Blueginger2, the former title was automatically italicized by the infobox for having "patrol boat" in the title; now with your move, it does not. Could you try to find a solution to this problem as you've done the move? Super Ψ Dro 16:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But how can it be automatically italicized? There was no line "infobox caption =" in the infobox...Blueginger2 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, if I create ship page, will it automatically make italic title?Blueginger2 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for too many questions. Blueginger2 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the template automatically italicizes it if the title is "patrol boat". It must be something technical. I was thinking that you could leave a message on the template's talk page to request it to also automatically italicize "patrol ship" but I am satisfied with your solution. Super Ψ Dro 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It only does it automatically if the warship is from a country with a prefix (e.g. USS, HMS, HMCS, ORP) or a commercial ship with a standard prefix (e.g. MV, MS, SS). To italicize a ship name for a country that does not use prefixes, such as Russia, one must put in the line in the infobox |display title= Russian patrol ship Vasily Bykov. This tells the article which part to caption. What happened is the infobox entry did not match the title and then did not know which to italicize. So when changing an article title for warships from non-prefix using nations such as Russia, China, Brazil, etc. always check the display title in the infobox to make sure it matches the title of the article. Llammakey (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. Super Ψ Dro 19:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, do you have the link to the template talk page? Blueginger2 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the template talk page, I'm not sure what template are you talking about. Blueginger2 (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, probably you mean the Ship Infobox template? Blueginger2 (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know...I was looking for the template but I can't find it. If anyone knows where it is, please let me know on this talk page or my talk page. Blueginger2 (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, apparently the template is not to be found. I don't know if there is another way to make titles automatically italic. Blueginger2 (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the template is Ship Infobox indeed? Blueginger2 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting is, that using other title doesn't make title italic. Blueginger2 (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the wording makes the difference that makes the words italic. Blueginger2 (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blueginger2, the link is Template:Infobox ship begin/doc. Since this is a warship you would click on the "Warships (except submarines)" for the template. At the top of the template, there is the line "|display title= keywords: none, ital; or article title with markup ". For a ship like this, the "article title with markup" means "Russian patrol ship Vasily Bykov". Hope that helps. Llammakey (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, for patrol ship it's not in italic. Blueginger2 (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I think it depends on wording? Blueginger2 (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the ship's name is in italics. Everything else would be normal text. Llammakey (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_patrol_ship_Vasily_Bykov&oldid=1212374977"