It's an issue on the white pride, and people just don't want us painting the better picture of it as cultural pride, and want us to generally hate ourselves for our culture's mistakes. I provided common knowledge, which are not assertians, but the subject makes people paint a different picture, undermining the negative details of their own. It is subjective, using technicalities to discrinate against beliefs and knowledge even if it is objective. But it's alwhite, I aint trippn.. Red.robbin.eatme ( talk)

@ Red.robbin.eatme: the issue isn't the content (actually, it is, but that isn't what I warned you for): it's what you did, which is edit war. Dschslava ( talk) 04:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

No, it's technicalities which people use to manipulate the truth. There is so much unsorted info on wikipedia, and half the time the sources are dead end. It's subjective and discrimination against the white race and people who try to repaint their culture for a better future for all.

I get it though. You want us to hate ourselves so we can't function, so they can progress their own cultural interests.

@ Red.robbin.eatme: Again, the issue isn't the content (we'll get to that later) but your conduct regarding WP:3RR. Dschslava ( talk) 05:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi there DSCHSLAVA, from Portugal,

you are 100% correct, no excuse for my actions, and I have been here for nine years every since I joined (I asked that my account be vanished in 2014 after a serious run-in with a troll, had the intention of leaving forever but I guess I cannot, I'm wiki-hooked) so I should know better...

If you meant my summary at André Simões (again I stress it, not excusing myself in any way), this is an IP-hopping nuisance from Greece that is giving me and User:GiantSnowman the time of day (months? years?), I'm really clutching at straws here. Again, if you mean that article and that summary, I did not harass, I insulted (no excuse for that, I admit it again), a difference there.

Attentively, sorry for any inconvenience -- 84.90.219.128 ( talk) 02:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ 84.90.219.128: first, thanks for your service. You say that you've been here for nine years—that means that your first edit was around the time I first ran into Wikipedia. I did indeed mean the edit summary at André Simões, and I do understand that things like this can make people liable to boil over at any given moment, and I do hope that no harm has been done. I'll keep an eye on that article and see what I can do to sort it out. Dschslava ( talk) 02:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your quick and kind reply. A tough task ahead of anyone that wants to keep an eye on this IP's actions, this person has (literally, not kidding you) hundreds of different addresses, Mr. Snowman has already, at my request, blocked 20 or so. -- 84.90.219.128 ( talk) 03:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ 84.90.219.128: Do remember to WP:INDENT your replies. It makes reading talk pages much easier, and I've taken the liberty of indenting your reply. Anyways, I've gone through the first IP's contributions, which seems to be overall productive and positive. The André Simões edit seems to be an anomaly, and I'll talk to him/her about it shortly. In any case, your other edit summaries seem quite troubling—it's almost as if you've been overwhelmed and as a result are lashing out at the editors. I'd advise you to take a step back from the article for a week or so—don't worry, I'll keep an eye on it—to help avoid any future incidents which might lead to you getting dragged to WP:AIV for those attacks. I'll do my best on the article. Cheers, Dschslava ( talk) 03:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Nope, that editor is not a per se vandal, and they would be quite useful were this a BLOG and not an ENCYCLOPEDIA (transfer rumours galore, and copying the newspaper sources verbatim to articles, which is forbidden by WP guidelines). Item #2: yes, my kind fellow user, spot on, I'm a bit unhinged as it is now, but really like the writing part of editing (not summaries, mind you :)) -- 84.90.219.128 ( talk) 03:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ 84.90.219.128: Right. I'll take care of the article for now, and you can come back in a week or so to see how it's going. Not before ;) Dschslava ( talk) 03:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

My latest summary efforts in the Mario Suárez (footballer) article surely don't deserve an award or a pat on the back (that's the way we should all behave here), but please do tell me what you think of that chap's last three "contributions". I could utter a few words, but I fear they would not be your cup of tea :) Best wishes -- 84.90.219.128 ( talk) 16:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ 84.90.219.128: How's this: what you did was nice. What he did wasn't. I'd thank you if I could, but my thanks button seems to have disappeared :P Dschslava ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Moved award here at 07:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Moved award here at 07:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I