This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Do not delete items from Talk pages. Rjd0060 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why was the post imidiantly before it (to which I replied) removed? ( Slatersteven 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Seems, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Seems seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Seems, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair doos, I was not aware it would break the rules. [[ Slatersteven 12:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]]
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
I don't have much of an issue with either of the things you wrote in the article War of 1812 but you have to cite it to put it in. I'd think that there should be plenty of books that you can quote. Tirronan ( talk) 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
With regards to you comments on list of atrocities, I think you might find the talk and archived talk pages of list of massacres of interest, because that list has been in existence for a number of years and has run into many of the problems that a list of atrocities will have. There have been similar problems with genocides in history (it took a long time to remove all the entries that did not have third party citations to events claimed to be a genocide), but because there is a legal definition and several scholarly definitions it is much easier to build a less biased list for that subject. Regards Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The
December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears that nobody else has yet asked you about this, but this edit you made a few days ago on WP:RS/N caused a mass deletion of active threads that took a couple of admins, Haemo and Slp1, some fussing to fix. The edit itself, changing the archive timer from 28 days to 30, seems to be a bit odd in and of itself. Since this also happened shortly after I made a posting on WP:RS/N, which also ended up being included in the mass deletion, could you explain why you decided to make such an odd, undiscussed change in the first place on such a busy board? -BC aka Callmebc ( talk) 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware I had. I just appended at the end of an question. I can only assume that I inadvetantly delited some stuff, but I have no idea what I did to achive this. I appoligise. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)]]
All I rember doing was adding the comment on the part about Saul David. As far as I recal I clicked on the link to that part, clicked the edit button and typed. I did not intentionaly (and did not even know) I had changed any part of the top of the page (and to the best of my memory did not) I never play about with any of the top parts of the page (I am not too sure what the varius formating codes do).[[
Slatersteven (
talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)]]
Could you enlighten me?[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)]]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 17:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment at the RfC on DemolitionMan. Please note, that the RfC needs one more editor to certify it before it can be accepted. If you would like to do so, please consider adding your signature below mine in the section labeled Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thanks. Ronnotel ( talk) 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven. Rereading your comments on the Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857 I sense that you were mislead on the meaning of the Hindi translation. Was the translation misrepresented? If yes, please do let me know. Thanks! -- RegentsPark ( talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
“For those of us who are multi-lingual, it is very handy to know what the term for these series of events in Hindi is as well. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)”
“Too bad. What is your reasoning for suggesting that "it is hardly necessary to put in the translation" - it is an India related article and English and Hindi enjoy official status of the Federal Govt - while languages like Marathi and Bengali are official languages of different states but not of the Federal Govt. I am putting it right back. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) “
This clearly gives the impresion it’s a translation, not an alterantiv name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_5#Hindi_text
“Correct me if I am wrong. This is what Wikipedia policy states: "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but names from languages which do not use a Latin alphabet, like Chinese and Russian, do." We have stated clearly in this article that there is no commonly used English name for these series of events. So based on the policy, shouldn't the transliteration of the name in the original language be used? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)” This states that it is a translation, not an alternative title. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]
Thanks!-- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats OK .[[
Slatersteven (
talk) 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]
The
February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 08:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, Not sure what to do with user:Desione who is making unhelpful edits on a number of British India history pages. He first appeared on February 14 on British Raj, a page I have been editing since October 2006. His talk page diatribes are full of words like "evil" etc. He has made a few edits, but his writing is so poor and the citations so unreliable ( here is an example), that I don't know how to proceed. Upon my return to Wikipedia in March after a longish winter break, I made my first edit in Indian Rebellion of 1857, since it is a parent article of one of British Raj's sections. The very next day, he appeared for the first time on that page, and you know that history. Then, when I went back to editing the Raj page (during one of "Indian Rebellion"'s lockdowns), and subsequently began to work on another section, he appeared on the parent article of that section, Company rule in India, for the first time, and has been confronting me there. Here is my last version of the page and here is what he has been reverting to. Compare the writing. Compare the quality of the references. And I am being accused of POV. Very frustrated. What should I do? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ihave to admit to some doubts about user:Desione, His style seems familiar, especially his use of ‘thank you’ when he believes he has made cutting point. But by that same token I have to assume good faith. So until I can see definite proof of wrong doing I shall do nothing. There is also the fact he seems to not be able to tell the difference between himself and DM.[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)]]
The
March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The
April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The
May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The
June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Slater, I have undone the edit you made deleting the disambig link I put in the article. Although I did not clearly understand what you meant by "not a clean up an addition, and is it a likely re-diection any way? N other book is listed in this way on the page", I am assuming you were under the impression this would be a redirect to the mutiny article itself. If this is correct then I'll point out that a seperate article exists on the book, which itself has some notabillity, and since it shares the name that a lot of Indian do use to describe, I believe a disambig is neccessary. I have reinstated the link, albeit slightly differently, but this should be satisfactory. Please leave me a message if you disagree. Thanks rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Slater, thanks for the message in the Talk:Hindu-German Conspiracy page. The name, date and page links to the ==notes== section which through the {{reflist}} template lists the author, publication date and page number. This is in turn linked through the harvard ciation templates to the literature section. It is a part of the {{ citation}} templates designed for use to cite references consistently. I realise this is a bit hard to understand, but you can see how it works in the main article page, as opposed to the editing version you're seeing. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello slater, thanks for the message and for taking the time to check the refs, I have now added the missing refs, which I thought I had added, but evidently hadn't. Thanks for your help, please let me know if you have anymore comments rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The
July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The
August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The September 2008
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please
vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The
September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I must apologize. I thought you were using a sock-puppet to basically patronize me. My apologies. I also apologize if I said anything out of line, I get carried away a lot over these kinds of things. I wouldn't mind continuing our debate, and I will try to be a little more civil. I just really love my country and I think that sometimes gets the better of me and I don't think before I say stuff. Sorry. Prussian725 ( talk) 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The
October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 01:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The
November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
hello! I lived a washington!! I don't like obama. obama is crazy!crazy!crazy!crazy!! hahahaha
how?? Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The
December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The
January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The
February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 07:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The
March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The
April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.- Binary TSO ???
I though I was in sandbox sorry[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)]]
Replied YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The
May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was curt in my last response. I disagree, first, that I was shouting, and that saying anyone is "anti-American" is an insult. Furthermore, you "templated the regulars" by copy and pasting rules; we know the rules, thanks, you can treat us like equals and discuss them rather than throwing them at us. I am trying to discuss his edits; you're the one who came along mistakenly thinking we weren't. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Monarchism is more democratic than political parties? Also your signature has too many brackets =/ 92.0.138.3 ( talk) 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Charles II-- Streona ( talk) 04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
G'day Steve. The reason I am writing is to let you know that there will be no more
United States edits from me!!
Thanks for the entertainment, buddy. I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions?
B. Fairbairn
Talk 20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
See this. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Slatersteven. B. Fairbairn Talk 9:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm just guessing, but it looks as if you're typing your signature by doing ~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">[[~~~~]]. Just to let you know that the brackets aren't necessary; typing four ~s is sufficient. Then again, if that was the effect you were aiming for, then disregard this. :) -- Golbez ( talk) 17:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find that there is now nothing in the article that is not referenced from a reliable source - whereas only a few days ago, most of the article was entirely unreferenced. If the article was GA or FA I would understand your concerns, but as it was when I came across it? Please. I have no desire to maintain the poor quality of articles. I will shortly be nominating it for GAN. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 13:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
for the second time. Do not edit my talk page again, I am not interested in what you have to say. I have better things to do. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 13:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm in a position now where I'd be happy to see this version replace Nick Griffin. If you have time, have a read through and let me know what you think. In addition to my comments on the Griffin talk page, I've substantially expanded his early NF career, corrected some mistakes (a Telegraph profile incorrectly stated he started the ITF in the early 80s), and moved some bits around. I still don't know what year he graduated, it should have been a 3 year course but I don't know yet. I think the [[unreliable source]] tags are very simple to remove, but that's probably best done once (if) the article is copied across - so other editors can see the source in the history. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The
June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring I have blocked you for a period of 1 day for edit-warring at Anti-Americanism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland ( talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Slatersteven/Archives/2016 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was never informed of this, and have had no chance to explain my actions, I also o9nly reverted 3 times (mainly becasue of the 3rr game play by another editor).
Decline reason:
Note that no warning is requisite when blocking for edit warring. If you want unblocked, read the guide to appealing blocks and formulate a proper request, though on the face of it you were edit warring and personally I'd learn the lesson and wait out the 23 hours or so left on this block period.
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.
Nja 247 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that I read that a warning is required if the person has never been blocked before. I'd encourage an admin to undo the block. If you haven't dealt with WebHamster, it's really impossible to know how much trolling and insulting he does. He leaves you no choice: you can't work toward consensus with someone who's abusive. Noloop ( talk) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please give me some diffs. I am very busy and don't have time to type a whole message. I will later. Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The
July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I hope you don't mind me moving your comments, it was making the whole thing much harder to read. Soxwon ( talk) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noloop Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for Arbitration Noloop and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I reported the mass deletion here. I'm not going to respond to his discussion on the talkpage; he's spouting nonsense and it's a waste of time. Doc Tropics 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago ( talk) 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
As a party to the Noloop arbitration case, I'm leaving you this note to let you know that I've extended the deadline in the Noloop case for the posting of the proposed decision. You now have until 13 September to present further evidence, or start presenting evidence. I've explained further here. If you have any questions, please ask there. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit? The names on the article were incorrect, and redirected to the correct ones anyway. TheoloJ ( talk) 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
on the birthday because the piece that ngo monitor is using as a source gets that info from us. [2] Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I just wanted to say that I'm glad we were able to put that bad business behind us, and both work constructively on this article. I think I could have handled things better than I did, so for the sake of future efforts I'd like to apologise if I ever caused any offence. There's no motive behind this other than a discussion I was reading about another, unrelated topic, which may descend into the type of argument we had. I've changed my working practices of late, I tend to write in my sandbox now and then invite criticism.
Anyway, I'm glad of your suggestions to the article, I think its improved massively over the last few months, due in no small part to your help. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 22:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I placed the photo there myself, with the original caption, if you'd care to get specific. For what it is worth, I have placed your edit of the actual shirt's caption back in there. A Sniper ( talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The
August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Just fyi, when you see a note like this "Published July 29, 2005, issue of July 29, 2005" at the top of a news article, it means that the article was published in the print edition. Historicist ( talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
So add the info to the page. That's how Wikipedia works. Historicist ( talk) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe there ought to be a way to briefly include NGO Monitor's main purpose as an organization as background information to the reader.-- 69.208.131.94 ( talk) 13:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting in the
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,
Roger Davies
talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If the sentence you recently added is a direct quote, then put it between quote marks. Thanks. AnonMoos ( talk) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I just replied to the Halloween comment if you want to discuss? Of the forest ( talk) 23:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you list any other proposals you might be comfortable with as well? I agree that tieing it to the controversy was important, just trying to gauge the opinions on a few versions from a few people. Thanks, -- 68.78.0.78 ( talk) 20:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
As a party to the Noloop arbitration case, I'm notifying you that I've made a proposal here to dismiss the case. Discussion is here. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The
September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Slatersteven, I saw that you removed the image of the Berlin Brigade patch from the Berlin Brigade page a few weeks ago. I just googled around a bid and to my surprise, it looks as if there are various versions from it. USAREUR got a different one than flickr. BerlinBrigade.com's version looks like the flickr version again. Which is now the real version? Ot were there more than one? Although I'm a Berliner, I'm from Spandau in the British Sector, so I can't really know. Would you eventually like to upgrade the image? BTW: The whole Berlin Brigade page is not accurate as the Berlin Infantry Brigade was never part of the US Berlin Brigade nor was it called Berlin Brigade once. What do you think about seperating the article into two? I got a lot of material here about the Berlin Infantry Brigade, I'd like to contribute, including a conplete list of the various earlier names of the Berlin Infantry Brigade. Kind regards -- BajanZindy ( talk) 14:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In light of the absence of Noloop ( talk · contribs) and the indefinite block of WebHamster ( talk · contribs), the two primary parties, this case is dismissed. If future problems arise (following the return or unblock of either or both editors), those problems should be dealt with by the opening of a new user conduct request for comment on the editor concerned. Requests for the Arbitration Committee to reopen this case would also be considered.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago ( talk) 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I would welcome your input here regarding the Google Earth section of the Loch Ness Monster article. Thanks. Adambro ( talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you've reverted my edits on the fascist nature of the BNP. Unfortunately, what you have done has gone back to a section which is inaccurate and not particularly informative. For example, despite what some disruptive editors argued in the talk page, the BNP has NOT been described as a "recalibration and modernization" of fascism in any of the sources quoted, or anywhere else for that matter! This was a deliberate misreading of one article's abstract by someone who never actually read the article itself! Further, to quote just one politician (Cameron) as calling them fascist is disingenuous - dozens have - and then to give three quotes for BNP denial is just pointless when one would do. This in itself suggests a distinct lack of balance. I can agree that a proper section on Fascism is needed in this article; however the current one is not it. For this reason, I have reverted to my version which I would ask editors to accept as a temporary measure which at least covers the issue until such time as we can come up with a decent section and not this nonsense.
You wrote on the discussion page: "As the fascism label is n the info box this deserves the same level of importance as racism or Anti-Semitism, its fundamental to those who oppose them". I agree, and think it also needs a mention in the introduction. After all, what most people know about the BNP is that it is condemned as fascist, so this should be up near the top. I think my intro para does this without going into detail. Let's get a good section where the detail can be expanded at the appropriate length. I've started a new section in the discussion where this can be discussed. Emeraude ( talk) 17:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it really a rule that you only archive after 7 days? I've never come across it. Francium12 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up
here, read up on the rules
here, and discuss the contest
here!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The
October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you've added the 2008 AfD for this article to today's log. I've deleted the entry - if you want to re-nominate the article, please follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO, using the afdx template (rather than afd1) on the article. Thanks. Tevildo ( talk) 18:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record I agree with your amendment. I was happier with that but other editors wanted the judgement phrase. -- Snowded TALK 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Please take care on the BNP article stephen as you have broken the 1RR condition and if the topic is so emotive to you that you would risk being blocked simply to replace caucasan then perhaps you should consider not editing the article as that would be preferable to a block. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Removal of very old material would be considered a revert if it was raised although you did it in good faith, If you want to remove old material I suggest a comment on the talk page to see if there is any objection and wait for others to comment and that will cover you back. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steven, just to let you know I posted at WP:ANI about this. Your mentioned in what I put but only as "an editor". I'm not asking you to do anthing unless you want to (in which case you're also welcome to), but I though I should let you know. Cheers. -- FormerIP ( talk) 23:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope my long addition to your question at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#When_is_a_revert_not_a_revert.2C_please_add_puchline this page doesn't divert attention to your question. I came to the talk page intending to ask about the definition of "reversion" and I was delighted to see that you had asked. I thought it would be best to piggy back on your question, but if respondents address mine and not yours, I'll help make sure they address both. I think your question is a tougher call, but I think it is not a reversion.-- SPhilbrick T 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Pl don't revert my restoration of the stable version. It is hardly arguable that Haloween is a "religious" occasion - it may have derived from a pagan religious festival. The onus is on those wishing to change the stable version to "take it to talk". Sarah777 ( talk) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a slow edit war here. Your insertion of material on the apologia for not fighting the course case was, per WP:BRD reverted as duplication. You should then have made the case for the change on the talk page, instead you have reinserted the material several times without that discussion. I tried for a compromise, but your response has been a reversion. I suggest you revert to the original and make your case on the talk page. If you don't I will. -- Snowded TALK 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Kindly do not post any more false accusations on my talk page, or ideally do not post there for any reason at all. 2 lines of K 303 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Indisputable though, I am occasionally checking what is going on at the article but it is such a vomit pit that it hardly seems worth the energy. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen, I notice your spelling or typing skill are almost as bad as mine, I enjoy the assistance of a spell checker on my browser, I recommend it to you, what browser do you use, IE or Firefox ? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the following sentence feels like it's missing something: "Through out his career on King James' Daemonlogie, and it has been suggested this indicates that one of his motivations was that he believed in the reality of witchcraft". The part before the comma doesn't seem to link to the part after. Nev1 ( talk) 19:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
hi, thanks for telling buddy ..... i will do it from now. الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 20:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The
November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The
December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if you could take a look at this. I've completely re-written it in the last week, and I'm trying to find good things to write about him. I can't. I can't find, anywhere, anyone who has something nice to say about him. Do you have any ideas? Parrot of Doom 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add weakly cited controversial content to the EDL article, this is a continuation of your previous attempt to link the BNP to the EDL with blogspots and weak citations. The threads are still available if you dispute this at the reliable source noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I for one would like to discuss any content that continues to be added that is weakly cited that enlarges the section that connects the two organizations. Feel free to add your desired additions on the talkpage for discussion. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the fact that we disagree about everything, I want to request you, please do not post on my talkpage again, thank you. I have a feeling that I have politely asked you this before, however I will make a note of this in my records and look forward to you respecting my wishes. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is No Cussing Club. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Cussing Club (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
My talk page is NOT comedy central. Haiduc ( talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your comments to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but at the moment I am more concerned with the large (or very large) sections of both European Universities Debating Championship and World Universities Debating Championship that seem to be drawn from this one domain. Codf1977 ( talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The
January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 04:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to revert your edit as the article is not to be edited until the copyvio issue is settled. You can put it on the talk page if you like. Dougweller ( talk) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
During a heated debate (no pun intended) on Talk:European Universities Debating Championship I had reason to suspect a bit of Sockpuppetry going on so filed this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singopo cue one amassing confession. Codf1977 ( talk) 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Since I have a dynamic IP, I'm taking the discussion to the talk page. -- 79.167.189.239 ( talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the
coordinator academy course and in the
responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The
February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
My apologises, I had an edit conflict, and accidently removed your comment, which I see that you have re-inserted. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The
March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Do not add fraudulent references, as you did in in this edit to 1989 Dewsbury race riot. Edits such as that have already contributed to one editor being community banned, and I will be happy to ask for admin action to be taken against you if you add another fraudulent reference at any point in the future. 2 lines of K 303 11:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Slatersteven ( talk) 14:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, – xeno talk 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Excessively_Brief&diff=359066099&oldid=359060210 this post?] I'm not sure what you meant by "without possible knowing it's false." I'm assuming you meant that the account wasn't necessarily created by the one who make the case (me) but I'm not sure. Can you clarify for me? Thanks, Auntie E. ( talk) 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, why do you think I should apologise to Mk? Auntie E. ( talk) 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The variable "nickname" needs to have a small "n" on it - it won't display with a large "N". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour,
Please go to article talk page [13].
Cordialement, -- Frania W. ( talk) 14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The
April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support when it seemed like everyone was against me. I realise that you don't agree with everything that I said, and I will admit that in my frustration, I may have let my emotions get the best of me on occasion. Still, it was very refreshing to see someone speak out against the attempt to get rid of me, at any cost, simply because I disagreed with others. Also, I would like to clarify why I did not answer the question that you posed to me on the Pershing talk page. Your question was, more or less, my statement, rearranged as an interrogative, and there wouldn't have been any need for you to ask it, were it not for the uncivil behaviour of another editor. I had stated that whilst I continued to disagree, the majority seemed to be against me, and that there would be little point in continuing to carry on with it. Dave, interested in the drama, and not the article, couldn't bear to see this, and attempted to lure me back into the fray with a completely innapropriate post. I didn't mean to disrespect you by ignoring your question. I just didn't want to "feed the trolls", and figured that it was best to not give him the satisfaction. All the best- Mk5384 ( talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is George Lee (British politician). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that these 2 pages should be deleted: Lega Padana Lombardia and Lombardy Project. As i've written in their "discussion" these parties don't exist actually and never existed in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.133.92 ( talk) 17:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Genocide_of_Ottoman_Turks_and_Muslims. Pcap ping 02:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that not all personalities are there, but I have other sources. try to read this short article about Petofy its good example: http://epa.oszk.hu/01400/01462/00019/pdf/181-189.pdf -- Samofi ( talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input; what's your opinion on requiring a citation for the list in the article? Eugene ( talk) 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The Soviet Union and the Chinese were not that interested in Vietnam, they provided weopons in an attempt to weaken their enemy American, but they were saw it as vital part of the cold war. Indeed, when America eventually "lost" the USSR and China had not won, indeed they ended up fighting the communist government for Vietnam a very short while later. It is very easy to argue that it was a war of independence, nothing more. Witty Beast ( talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I was merely stating that it isnt as clear cut as that as not all parties involved saw it as part of the Cold War. However you may be right. Witty Beast ( talk) 10:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
is it right to describe it as part of the cold war then? Diem was a puppet of France then America, but Ho was never a puppet of the USSR or China by any means. Witty Beast ( talk) 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The
May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you belive that anti-Americanism is only relevent if it can be proved irrefutably that the anti-Americans are soley motivated by hatred of the USA with no extraneous considerations? I.e. it is not any thing or qualities the Americans have but just their being American? Is anti-Amercianism only relevent if the anti-Americans have an essential hatred of a putative "americanism" uncontaminated with any (possibly false) qualities they ascribe to the Americans? I am English by the way...and drink tea...I know there are some misguided people who are anti-English but is it it just the tea drinking they are against? What I mean is - that can one divorce hatred of a particular nation from whatever (putative) qualities that that nation posseses? For instance if one says that "I hate loud mouthed Americans" - does that mean that (putatively) there are soft voiced Americans that one might love??? Colin4C ( talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
For your dispassionate and policy-based comment here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Made_bold_edit_to_lead RomaC ( talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Americanism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Noloop ( talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoned additions to the page. By the way, it's "grasp" not "crasp". (I felt the need to have a go at someone else's spelling :D ) Verbal chat 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. In order to avoid subsequent misunderstandings, I want to know your opinion (since I was engaged in a debate whether or not film falls under category of apocalipticism with you last time). In the article itself there's no mentioning that it's a post-apocalyptic film, well the term still and then wasn't that popular. Anyway, if your answer would be negative - I will reject it till you don't watch the film, and even after watching the film you will still keep your ground - ok, I won't add it to the article. Don't read the plot, like I said, you won't find any mentioning. But be sure, in the film there's an idea of post-apocalyptic world where the humankind was totally changed. If it's not an apocalypticism, then what (or is it necessary for the humanking to transform into zombies so only then it would be considered as post-apocalyptic film)? Besides, the film is pretty good. Userpd ( talk) 06:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD and just allow a little time for discussion - all you are doing is polarizing a debate when we should be having a discussion -- Snowded TALK 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
is a political designation. Please do not remove sources while there is ongoing dispute. Also be aware of the 3RR. Verbal chat 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a ban/topic ban proposal at AN/I. Obviously anyone who has worked with him should have a chance to express themselves here. Aside from people working on the Jesus article, I am not sure who else has worked with him, but if you know the right places to announce this please do. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Its on ANI there is no need top go announcing it all around, take care not to canvass. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a wrong click. As you probably saw I immediately reverted that revert. Garion96 (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Just to let you know that I've now come up with some draft text to include in the article, which I've posted on the NPOV noticeboard. Comments are welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The Request for mediation concerning English Defence League, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by
MediationBot, an automated bot account
operated by the
Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
This edit made me smile. I wonder if anyone will actually suspect a conflict of interest? TFOWR 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Call the police! Mr. Slater has fled the country and escaped to the UK!
Mr. Slater, you may be a folk hero but in the future, do not destroy company property by opening up the slide. At the very least, you should pay for repair. You could have waited for the jetway, like other people.
The press is calling you bisexual. Did you know that? Notslater ( talk) 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Were you drinking Blue Moon and sliding down the slide while you were typing this? "Another passanger, Howard Deneroff, has said that he idi not see Slater with a cut on his head. He has also dais he saw slater arguning wiht a women over her bag, which sllater was saying was too big and had to be checked." LOL – BMRR ( talk) 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Slater, please do not continue to alter or add to your comment at the RfC/U. As you can see someone agreed with your initial summary and now were forced to post that they do not agree with some of your additional points. If you need to make additional points please post a second summary or seek other advice on what to do. Once people start to post agreement with your summary it should not be edit as you are then changing that which someone might have agreed with. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to answer, I had a couple of RL issues plus the copyvio issue that took my attention. I did not intend to delete your !vote, I had no idea I did so. My apologies. GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
are never meant to be punitive. Not for me, not for Noloop, not for anyone. The purpose of a block is either to defuse a heated conflict or to encourage someone who flagrantly violates policy to observe how effective editors work together and to read up on policy. But blocks should not be thought of as punitive. I have been blocked, and i have blocked others, and I have never thought of it as punishment and I or whoever blocked me also made this clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the last time you equated blocking with punishment. here Slrubenstein | Talk 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Slater, please stop coming up with new and obnoxious ways of referring to Slrubenstein. These are indeed insulting and indeed nothing but veiled name calling. In American English a "rubber" is a condom, and I've already told you that "Sluber" sounds like "slobber". If you do not stop doing this you deserve an incivility block yourself. Stop being so childish. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Steven, I think you should take Griswaldo's comment more seriously than that. A number of editors over there already seem to be demonstrating a lack of patience and I don't think calling people things other than their names is a good idea. I appreciate you are not Mavis Beacon (which I am not criticising you for, and wouldn't), so maybe shortening a name is okay, but not coining nicknames. PS: "Noloop" also only has one l. -- FormerIP ( talk) 14:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
"Or its something you use to rub something out. Or a material that is used in many manafacturing process. AFG" Slatersteven, can you please explain to me what "AGF" means in this context? What is the "good faith" interpretation of you callimg me Rubbers? Are you saying that you wish to use me "to rub something out?" Or are you saying that I am "a material that is used in many manufacturing process" (sic)? I am quoting your own words, so I assume these are your explanations for calling me Rubbers. But what kind of "good faith" could justify your identifying me with an eraser or a material used in manufacturing? Why do you call me Rubbers? You want us to assume good faith? Well, I am assuming good faith by asking you, politely, why do you call me Rubbers, or Sluber? Slrubenstein | Talk 07:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
please stop edit warring , thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya. Someones found a fair few sources for this now. Do you still want to keep your delete vote or are you happy for the AfD to be closed as keep and save the bureacracy? Quantpole ( talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there sufficient assertion of notability at Salamat Sadykova now, in your opinion? If so and you withdraw your delete !vote, we can WP:SPEEDYKEEP the AfD. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Your removal of the Hefferman material when there was clearly no consensus for the act is a disruptive edit. Further, since you previously added to the material in the lede when you believed a source existed to portray it in a negative manner, then suddenly removed it entirely when the source was shown false, a case can be made for intentional bias, as well as disruptive editing.
There appears to be consensus to move the material from the lede to the body, but not to remove it entirely. Please self revert, and restore the material. Fell Gleaming talk 21:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
[14]. That's how we know it really was her. It's a confirmed Twitter account. ScienceApologist ( talk) 07:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27 Zuggernaut ( talk) 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate, as I think all readers do, your effort to clean up your quick first draft and repair your inadvertent typographical errors. Please note however that your most recent (1) effort appears to have removed some errors only to replace them with different errors whilst neglecting others. This was just a friendly note of thanks, as a reader, for your efforts - combined with an observation produced to support and improve your work. Thank you. 99.144.248.213 ( talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Hello, I introduced an article to Wikipedia on Amy Elizabeth Thorpe. You wrote on the talk page words to the effect that the sources indicating her role in WW2, (especially where Enigma is concerned) should be included even if others dispute them. I agree with you. I am in a long discussion with another editor, Nihil Novi, who seems obsessed with making sure none but Poles take credit for helping with Enigma in WW2, while I am fine including both the sources that mention Poles and sources that mention other Enigma help.
Leidseplein ( talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the assistance in Challenger Deep. More so, I appreciate the integrity you've displayed. I've seen many editors (including a couple of admins) who have conflicted with me in the past choose to "take the other side" in such debates, merely to do a past opponent one in the eye. Fell Gleaming talk 13:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Challenger Deep, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 13:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FellGleaming. Thank you. — Viriditas ( talk) 13:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm taking this discussion off the talk page of the climate change arbitration and onto this user talk page because it's a peripheral matter that by its nature is unlikely to be actionable (the kind of protection proposed is against our policies) and because you seem to have misunderstood me and you sound quite angry about what you think I mean. My fault, I should have been much clearer. We don't normally fully protect articles for a number of good reasons each of which is rather persuasive on its own.
Firstly, the Wiki is open to all and every article without exception benefits from edits added in passing. Bad edits and vandalism are quickly identified and easily removed, so the articles improve. Phrasing is polished,emphasis and balance tweaked, sections are added and expanded, and so on. It's easy to overlook the fact that this happens even while disputes are discussed on the talk page, provided all editors avoid edit warring. (to be continued) Tasty monster (= TS ) 15:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Conversely full protection forfeits those benefits, and when done in the absence of edit warring no benefit accrues to the article to make up for the loss of open editing. Open editing may seem like a recipe for chaos but in practice you end up with pretty good articles, most noticeably and perhaps surprisingly in science topics where our quality has been highly praised by expert commentators comparing us to the best non-free encyclopedias. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I do of course think it's good to protect an article over a dispute if edit warring breaks out (though as a matter of policy I tend to favor blocking the warring parties in an isolated dispute in the hope that others can continue to edit the article harmoniously.) Again, apologies for a sarcastic retort that failed to take into account the differing levels of experience on Wikipedia. The crucial advantages of open editing have been made clear by the experience of offshoots like Citizendium that adopted a closed or deferred model, as well as similar predecessors like Nupedia and H2G2. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
On the nature of the dispute, basically it's an extension of external conflicts by other means. That doesn't have to happen--if you look at the evolution articles you'll see that despite the widespread public controversy over evolution in the United States and to a lesser degree elsewhere both the science articles and the articles about the disputes are not subject to the same level of torment. We'd like to get to the point where the same applies to climate change. It's no more a content dispute than evolution versus creationism. Wikipedia can only follow scientific consensus, it can't and shouldn't level the playing field. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
If there are any permanently or long-term fully protected articles anywhere on Wikipedia it's news to me, but I'll investigate this before commenting further. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't argue with somebody who doesn't accept that semiprotection is very different from full protection. Assuming you do recognise the distinction, I think there is probably a good argument to be made for semiprotecting all climate change articles either indefinitely or for a long period, but as the argument has never been made the attempts to do that have failed. I could probably successfully argue for that but I don't see it as a sensible long term strategy. The articles are watched so closely that semiprotection is largely redundant.
The recent switch of the libertarianism article from long term semiprotection to full protection with the same period is intriguing but not persuasive as to policy or wisdom. Tasty monster (= TS ) 17:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to correct you on one matter. Semiprotection is no use against edit warring. It's only effect is to force unregistered editors to register an account, make a very small number of edits, and wait a few days. Malicious editors have been known to register many accounts months or years in advance in a futile attempt to overwhelm Wikipedia's immune system. It doesn't work in practice because they get blocked for sock puppetry, but the same principle applies to all editors. Register an account and within a few days anybody can edit every semiprotected page on the Wiki. The assumption is that most casual vandals will go elsewhere to get their jollies. Tasty monster (= TS ) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, my computer had trouble loading the page, so my edit somehow got submitted twice. In case you got the wrong idea, since your edit summary sounds a tad sarcastic. Which from my experience on WP, can be provocative at times. Just wanted to point this out. Cheers, ANG CHENRUI WP:MSE ♨ 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have started a new section on Talk: Indian Rebellion of 1857headed Explanation for large variety of Nomenclature. Please comment there on my proposed alteration. I have taken on board that you "preferred the old version" from your edit summary for your revert, but I would prefer a less subjective response if you are able. I have reinstated my new version, which will be subject to revision in the normal way once I receive your more substantial reasoning. Please reply at Talk: Indian Rebellion of 1857. Regards. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 16:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC))
Hi since you were involved in the discussion, I thought you might to see this and vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranshenasi -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
Not sure if you are aware of this, but the bit about the time traveler kerfuffle will always be in the article, even if disproven, shown as hoax or - lol - actual proof of time travel. Once something is reported on by reliable notable media, it becomes notable forever. I get the impression that you feel that if you denigrate the reportage of the topic enough, it will simply be removed from the article. You need to understand that that will never happen, in accordance with wiki policy and guidelines. If you are unclear on this, ask an admin, or use one of our many fine noticeboards to seek out additional input. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thought I'd point out that you are at 3RR for the day. One more revert and you can be blocked. I'd advise you to stick to the article discussion page. I am constantly astounded that people think that edit-warring actually works. The only thing it can actually do is get you blocked. Please stop reverting. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I know you are relatively new, but going to another user's talk page to talk peaceably and then accuse that user of gaming the system is bad form, and I take exception to the accusation. I've purged your comments from my talk page. If you feel like apologizing for the bad faith remark, you are welcome to post again. Otherwise, you need not post to my talk page anymore. thanks in advance. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 13:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Slater, but Scotty felt the irresistible need to take one more swing; I shan't post after this. Scotty, you are working my last nerve. I chastised Slater for accusingme of gaming the system, which is patently incorrect. When he failed to apologize for the accusation, I asked him to not post to my page again. Not sure how that involves you, precisely, but maybe you should seriously consider not stalking my edits - people get blocked for that. I've proven you dreadfully wrong on matters of both policy and behavior. You can't admit it. Got it. Now, kindly stick a cork in it and go edit something. I hear The Circus (film) could use some help. Full stop,
Again, I am sorry, Slatersteven, for using your page to respond to Scotty's continuing little rant. He can stay off my page, too. And I'll point out that since you took a little more time to check your posts, they have been pretty easy to read. Thanks for the effort. :) -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 15:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting really tired, but maybe it's because I went to the dentist today. I don't mind a good debate, but this is going in circles. The guy doesn't even get it when we agree with him. Eastcote ( talk) 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I answered your question on the NPOV noticeboard here and was hoping I could get your opinion. Thanks. Yobol ( talk) 14:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Just as an aside, you've used odd linking in this thread - Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF. if it's a link within wikipedia, use doubled brackets and delete the first (http:// through 'wiki') portion of the link [[Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF]]. if it's an external link, use single brackets and the full path [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF]. see help:link
Slater - I have asked you again to provide diffs to support your statement that "We have multtiple broadsheet RS calling them left wing". At the moment my count is one. -- Snowded TALK 22:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We have to fight this labelling. It's preposterous that they should be given this labelling on an open encyclopaedia! Alexandre8 ( talk) 18:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I undid any of your edits to English Defence League as I was undoing the removal of a section performed in an earlier edit by JzG. __ meco ( talk) 19:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me know what comment you want removed and I will strongly consider it (probably remove it).
Are you related to the Jet Blue flight attendant that blew his stack and slid down the slide, quit his job, and got into trouble? MVOO ( talk) 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The creator wishes to compromise with you about the small section of "Reawakening" listed on List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction Pandemic = Comics and Manga.
Thus, I have created this section on your page - I myself do not have anything to do with this.
-- 216.99.102.172 ( talk) 22:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.99.102.172 (
talk) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello I'd like to contact you about my comic "Reawakening". I do not know why many people are thinking it is dead when I make weekly updates on the comic's progress on Facebook. Second I'd like to compromise to see If I could possibly make a page regarding "Just what is Reawakening?" I will provide refrences to sites that ahve featured my comic(3 in total), and photos of pictures I have made for it. Thoughts? Daspletosaurus 5000 ( talk) 22:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I am 216.99.102.172 --
TeensOfTheDownfall (
talk) 23:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I will hereon agree to the deletion of my page Epidemic (Novel) until the writing stage is complete. In the request that User:TeensOfTheDownfall/Epidemic_(Novel) remain up for personal edits. (It will not be linked to on any other page here on Wikipedia)
Sod all to do with me I was just offering advice.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This editor has repeatedly called me a liar during this debate. He has been sanctimonious and sarcastic throughout, and has been warned about this kind of behavior before on previous debates by other editors. If he wishes to report me he is welcome, any reasoned look at the exchanges will implicate him as well.
Regardless, I'm off to cool down and I appreciate the guidance. V7-sport ( talk) 22:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Er, take what to AN/I, precisely? Are you talking about the differences of opinion in The Circus? If so, you might be confused with the differences between mediation, noticeboard discussions and actual user conduct complaints (for which AN/I is reserved). - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Steven! I don't know which post you mean, but it must have been an error. Please restore it or tell me where it is and I'll restore it. -- FormerIP ( talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently, you are at 3 reverts in the Time travel urban legends article, and 3 reverts in The Circus. Please be aware that any subsequent reverts on your part will result in you being reported for edit-warring and 3RR. Please consider this your sole warning on this matter. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC) As previously noted, these two edits place you in violation of the 3RR rule prohibiting excess reverts. You might want to self revert your last two edits in Time travel urban legends in a timely manner. I will wait a very limited amount of time before reporting you to AN/3RR. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You might want to read that bit that says a revert is an edit that undoes antothers work. Many of the edits you claim are reverts re-wrtire material I had added and do not infact alter any one elses material. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would email me. I'd email you but your email is not activated. ScottyBerg ( talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Time travel urban legends is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Cheers. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
|
I just wanted to let wikipedia editors know that the British National Party has a new logo that has replaced the former logo still being shown in the British National Party wiki article. 92.25.150.186 ( talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Airfix, Atlantic or Britains? 1/32 or 1/72? :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕)) 21:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Is there anything I can do to help you utilize the spell check features of your browser? Viriditas ( talk) 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to bring your attention to your error here. Cordially, SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stephen, where is the UAF founding statement that those people signed? Off2riorob ( talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate your enthusiasm concerning this article, and I do agree with your points, but I'd try to be a little more cautious of making your points and edits a bit clearer on the page, especially during a tumultuous time like this. Thanks!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In case you haven't been following the discussion(s) close enough, evidence has been provided, [21] [22] however, it is not acceptable to put it on-wiki because the identity and privacy of the user comes first. My attempt to protect Jack Sebastian is a far cry from "disingenuous". Viriditas ( talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please forgive my error, if I have put this in the wrong place. This is a difficult posting format, both to navigate and to edit, especially when one is more used to forums and discussion groups which use more standardized formats, controls, commands and functions,(IE: PHPbb, email, etc). I am simply addressing you to ask if I am allowed to directly give my input on the ANI discussion to give firsthand answers to the questions you put to Gyrofrog, since some of those questions can only be accurately answered firsthand on points where Gyrofrog, for lack of intimate knowledge of me and my motives, can only presume. for one case in point, it is true that I have (deliberately) not tried to re-insert reverted edits because I have learned that to do so is against established protocol, which I am trying, as best I can, not to violate. I have learned that when a point is challenged, debated and/or reverted that it must be resolved and permission granted BEFORE it MAY be re-inserted. My refusal to re-insert was meant as a sign of genuine good faith. After reading what you have said thus far, I am very grateful that I was notified of the ANI Discussion or else I'd not have seen that you seem to genuinely try to be fair and open to the possibility that perhaps Gyrofrog misinterpreted or misunderstood something, such as my intent, etc. I tried to explain in my first response to his reversion notice (on his talk page) that I had already given third party sources which cover not one but multiple points made in my edits and that I did not insert a ref link for each point, thinking that such redundant cites of the same source might be against protocol and unnecessary, when the reader has already been referred to read said sources already. If I was being overly frugal, I apologize. Another thing is that when I told him "I myself AM a source" the interpretation he tells you on the ANI page shows clearly that he has eisogeted a false meaning into that statement. I did not say "I am THE source" but just "a source", because of the fact that I am intimately familiar with my own people and my own faith and the joint history thereof both. It was no different than if one of the 50 translators of the King James Version had said that he is a source on how the job of translation was done. It is not a claim of exclusivity and this is why eisogesis is a bad practice. I always tell those whom I tutor that the practice of eisogesis (to read your own interpretation into a text) is never an acceptable method for interpreting any non-fictional text. It is contrary to the rules of proper hermeneutics because to do so instantly turns the context into a pretext and all too often a false pretext at that. I also could not help noticing from your profile, that we are both monarchists. I have been lobbying for the monarchy to be restored in Abyssinia patterned more after that used in the UK, which has proven to be a most successful model,(as monarchism goes). Had that been the case under Emperor Selassie early on, perhaps the Marxist regimes of Mengistu and Zenawi might have been avoided. Selassie did try to model his monarchy more like Britain after WWII, but by that time the seeds of discontent were already being sown among Ethiopian school faculties and in Eritrea. But I am digressing from the subject at hand. I'd be willing to discuss politics, if you like, some other more appropriate time and forum. But it does show me why, perhaps, you seem to be more reasonable and fair minded when examining issues, for which I am grateful as I have not encountered that on Wikipedia before and it is quite refreshing.
So I will not input anything to the ANI discussion until you tell me that it is permitted. I'd much rather you email any questions you may have and I'd be glad to address them. But please, remember, sometimes you get better information from inside, rather than outside, observers and scholars, because of their familiarity with the subject matter. One would expect an Anglican Bishop to know his own faith better than,(just for example), a Pentecostal from rural Kentucky, might know the Anglican church. Hands on experience does indeed make one a valid source of knowledge than someone far removed and much less familiar. If that were not true, then one may as well trust one's local auto mechanic to perform one's dentistry. I do not intend that in a flippant way, it is just a statement using the same logic that would deny that an Messianic Aksumite Jew would know more about his own than one who has little familiarity.
Lastly, for now, it is not an illegitimate practice to use more commonly understood terminology when trying to explain something to the outside world, especially since the outside world have already decided to use the incorrect terminology. When I allowed "Kes", used by someone else, to remain in a given text instead of using the more correct term "Kahane", that is most likely what I had in mind, because for one thing, Kes is how outsiders spell it, not the correct transliteration, which I always do as "Qes". I rarely will use a K instead of a Q to transliterate the Ge'ez character ቄ because Q is technically the only correct English equivalent and that is why there is more than one character in both languages with the same sound, more specifically the English letter K would correspond not to the Ge'ez character ቄ , but instead to the Ge'ez character as is properly used, for example, at the end of my surname. I also understood that ቄስ (Qes) is one of the two most understood terms meaning "priest" among my main target audience, Habesha people. The other being አባ (Aba, usually mistransliterated as Abba). The difference being only that Qes is a married priest and Aba is a celibate priest (IE: a monk). But when trying to explain something so that even the most simple person in one's target audience can understand, sometimes one has to make concessions or else one would need to write an extensive glossary, especially when the target audience is from a nation that speaks EIGHTY languages as we have in Abyssinia! That is yet another reason to allow for more common terminology even if it is not the most correct. One needs to not be too petty when trying to reach a widely mixed audience. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, who "took great pains to strain at a tiny gnat but had no qualms about swallowing a [whole unkosher] camel" (paraphrased to show intent). The unfortunate fact of the matter is that things are rarely transliterated 100% correctly between different scripts and the only way to fix this is to correct it but sometimes that can be a distraction from the real point, thus making one feel it may be better to let it pass to maintain focus upon the real point at hand. So I am admitting to being inconsistent for the sake of convenience and for the sake of not digressing, in the Kes vs Kahane issue which Gyrofrog has seized upon. I knew what I was doing when I left Kes in the text. I was more concerned with the facts and context. So on that one I must plead "guilty with an explaination".
As for credentials to show I am called to the position I assert, I have the same credentials Shmuel received from Eli, that Natan received from Shmuel... a lot of scented holy oil smeared upon my head by my late predecessor, Yohannes Anteneh YeFat'ari. Sorry if anyone was expecting to see some parchment with an embossed seal, but that is not how it works for us. We are a bit old fashioned that way. We are the kind of people who think that a mans word and handshake trumps a stack of affidavits and yes, we also think that the bible is really all true, which itself certifies us as "peculiar", to put it politely, though the liberal media would prefer the term "nuts", I am sure. But I just deal with such negative criticism as water on a swan's back and am more interested in that which is constructive and productive.
Amasaganalu (Thank you). [Menilek] ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful answers and advice. Unfortunately, my busy duties do not permit me to be on here every day and I've lost the whole ANI discussion when it went to the archives. Also, as a head official in a globally scattered faith, I'm very busy with such duties and seeing that this Wikipedia thing is proving to be much more of a work burden than I have time to cope with or than I bargained for, I may need to set it all aside and get someone else to submit edits on my behalf who is more familiar with how this all works. I just do not have the time and my health is not well, so the info I wanted to contribute may well even be lost soon, when I am replaced by the oncoming generation. But I will try to produce records with references even if it all just becomes shelved and must be handled and finished by others in the future. I must look after my more immediate duties to my people while I still can do so. Again, thank you for your attempt to help. [Menilek] ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 13:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thought you should know User:Epeefleche (not unexpectedly) has removed the disclaimer you added after my WP:RS noticeboard report on Valery Shary ( [25]), claiming the disclaimer to be "non-notable" (whatever that means). He also added two more sources which both use Eisen's list as their source (as can be viewed in the appendix of each book) and makes it seem like they're three separate sources by using the words "in addition." It's such a worthlessly small article that I really don't feel like bringing it back to the WP:BLP noticeboard... but I figured this is a good way for people to see the tactics this user constantly engages in when editing Jewish BLPs. Bulldog123 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for running it by me, and apoligies for not running it by you: WP:AN/I#Hauskalainen-- FormerIP ( talk) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You've been asked by administrators to avoid reverting my edits, considering the rather inhospitable nature of our past interactions. Please respect that request, and stay away. This is a gentle reminder, not a warning; with any luck, such will not become necessary. Thank you for your cooperation and use of spellcheck. I do not need a response, as this is not an initiation to discussion. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why does the BNP have so much interest in the borough of Barking and Dagenham? It seems to be their most valuable council, but i fail to understand their strong interests. There are hundreds of councils in and around London. There are several countries all over Britain. Why Barking and Dagenham? Telegraph: BNP in Barking and Dagenham Pass a Method talk 09:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. There currently is a dispute and I was wondering if you could please chime in with your opinion on the matter to help get an idea of consensus exists for this rather big change. I see you are an active editor on the article. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#Very_long 67.169.68.203 ( talk) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 04:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson ( talk) 14:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
|
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You missed a few here. I'd fix them, but don't want to intrude. Figured you might want to know since you came back to get the one... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Taiwan, you may be blocked from editing. Per long-standing consensus, Taiwan is the island, ROC is the nation damn it. If you revert twice more, I will be adding your name to AN3 as well. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 23:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The manifesto was emailed in DOCX format. All the DOCX formats floating around are 1,516 pages. The PDF made by Kevin Slaughter from the original DOCX and which became popular was 1,518 pages. That PDF was notably missing the table of contents found in the original DOCX and added additional blank pages. Pristino ( talk) 14:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do you feel the need o mention breivik is a zionist in the lead? His video upload did not mention zionism or anything related to Israel. His police report did not mention anything remotely related to zionism. His activity prior to the attack did not have anything related to zionism. The article already states he is pro-israe. Doesn't yor edit conflict with WP:UNDUE ? Please don't revert me until you have explained your edit - i will be watching closely. Thanks Pass a Method talk 14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay lets try to get consensus in the tlk page. Pass a Method talk 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
See [26]. Less typos give comments more weight in a discussion. ;-) Cs32en Talk to me 13:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by June 9, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
At RSN, one editor asserted that Polar Review republished the book making it not SPS <g>. Problem is, his cite is for page 384 of the Polar Review which is the review itself. This has muddied the SPS fact a bit, alas. You might wish to look t the discussion again, as the one editor pushing the book has basically simply resorted, IMHO, to ad homs now. Cheers - I do not expect to edit that article after this sort of muddying of the issue. Cherrs and thank you. Collect ( talk) 13:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
[27] You do realise I was asking for advice about my own use of the source? How is that tit for tat and where is your presumption of good faith? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree this edit is ungrammatical and improperly formatted? If so, should someone revert it? Pass a Method talk 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 18:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
As someone who strives to follow NPOV, I find his remarks very unhelpful but rarely feel strong enough about such remarks to go to WQA - this time I did. Not confronting edits that raise tension unnecessarily is a mistake IMHO. BTW stroll by Talk:War of the Pacific. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
– Richard BB 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Re [28], it's best to either raise the issue directly with the editor on the user's talk page, or raise the issue at Wikiquette Alerts. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Have you ever heard of grammar or spelling? You see, I would try to take on board what you're saying if I could actually understand it! Why don't you have another go and see if you make yourself more understandable? And remember, punctuation is your friend! 4567treminater ( talk) 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Eurgh! A comma splice and a missing apostrophe! How hideous. 4567treminater ( talk) 16:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear Lord, I love self-important people on the internet who dish out warnings as if they actually matter! 4567treminater ( talk) 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Call you an offensive name? Sir, I would never stoop that low. At the risk of contradicting myself, only morons resort to that kind of behaviour. No, I can do much better than that! 4567treminater ( talk) 16:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Once again, you're making the mistake of thinking that I care. 4567treminater ( talk) 16:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
4 people agree with a redirect, Me, you, Sean and verbal. What should i do? Pass a Method talk 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you seem to be a regular contributor at WP:NPOVN. I respectfully request your expertise in the matter described here: [30] We seem to be deadlocked. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 08:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page.
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Nominations for the " Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 10:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited British Freedom Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BNP ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Whilst I don't agree with everything you suggest, I appreciate working with an editor willing to discuss until a mutual consensus is agreed. Sadly too rare these days. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
Appritiated.
Slatersteven (
talk) 23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 02:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Slatersteven/Archives/2016. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
In case you didn't know, NATO is having their host Summit in Chicago. They are having exercises through the city (i.e. flying Littlebirds and Black Hawks). I cited the source; I am confused on what you are objecting to. Please iterate. -- True Skepticism ( talk) 18:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 15:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, I'd really appreciate your input in the Falklands sovereignty talk page. I really trust your criteria so, even though I truly feel that my edit is far less convoluted than Wee's, if you think his edit is more convenient I'll end my involvement in the discussion. Thank you! Gaba p ( talk) 23:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 19:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 09:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 01:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators ( about the project • what coordinators do) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project and/or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Nick-D (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 21:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Nick-D (
talk) and
Ian Rose (
talk) 03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, just letting you know I made some minor corrections to your edits in the Ceasefire of 21 November section. Cheers! Gaba p ( talk) 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Slatersteven. I notice you have commented at Talk:Falkland Islands#Sovereignty dispute - Change in sentence, so I picked your name as somebody who could give me an opinion. It seems to me that a lot of article reverts have happened recently. It seems very worthwhile that people are having a structured discussion to agree on a solution. If the continued reverts are a discouragement to the efforts at compromise, do you think it would be of use to put the article under full protection until a conclusion is reached on talk? Thanks for any comment, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven,
A courtesy note to let you know that I made some minor changes to your posting to make it more readable. I trust that this is in order. Martinvl ( talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, since the discussion over at that article has taken other paths I though I'd ask you here. Would you like to propose an edit for the position of Spain? As I said, I'd have no problem in moving it to the "neutral or calling for negotiations" section. Would that be ok to you? I believe the mention of Gibraltar is of most importance given the similarities and the importance of Spain in the Falklands conflict; do you think it should be removed? If you don't want to get involved in this argument I'll understand. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 17:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, I see you reverted here the remove OAS and UN. I added them because they are directly mentioned in the quote by the Seretary of State (translated): "Spain shares with Argentina its position over the Falklands. It has done so for a long time and this is expressed in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OAS and United Nations" (bolded by me). Wouldn't you say my edit is a fair representation of this quote? Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 15:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 04:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I've restarted the article Press Play on Tape WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
What function does this topic serve? I need a sense of which languages to translate my client's website to first. My client would prefer the most "affluent" languages. Bugloaf ( talk) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I have already addressed the editors and would-be editors by explaining to them my revert. Does it even sound biased? I have explained there that I have worded it in such a way giving benefit of doubt to my insertion.
Pcbyed ( talk) 12:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
please see talk ww1- I think you mistyped. Gravuritas ( talk) 11:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
|
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Do not delete items from Talk pages. Rjd0060 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why was the post imidiantly before it (to which I replied) removed? ( Slatersteven 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Seems, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Seems seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Seems, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair doos, I was not aware it would break the rules. [[ Slatersteven 12:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]]
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
I don't have much of an issue with either of the things you wrote in the article War of 1812 but you have to cite it to put it in. I'd think that there should be plenty of books that you can quote. Tirronan ( talk) 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
With regards to you comments on list of atrocities, I think you might find the talk and archived talk pages of list of massacres of interest, because that list has been in existence for a number of years and has run into many of the problems that a list of atrocities will have. There have been similar problems with genocides in history (it took a long time to remove all the entries that did not have third party citations to events claimed to be a genocide), but because there is a legal definition and several scholarly definitions it is much easier to build a less biased list for that subject. Regards Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The
December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears that nobody else has yet asked you about this, but this edit you made a few days ago on WP:RS/N caused a mass deletion of active threads that took a couple of admins, Haemo and Slp1, some fussing to fix. The edit itself, changing the archive timer from 28 days to 30, seems to be a bit odd in and of itself. Since this also happened shortly after I made a posting on WP:RS/N, which also ended up being included in the mass deletion, could you explain why you decided to make such an odd, undiscussed change in the first place on such a busy board? -BC aka Callmebc ( talk) 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware I had. I just appended at the end of an question. I can only assume that I inadvetantly delited some stuff, but I have no idea what I did to achive this. I appoligise. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)]]
All I rember doing was adding the comment on the part about Saul David. As far as I recal I clicked on the link to that part, clicked the edit button and typed. I did not intentionaly (and did not even know) I had changed any part of the top of the page (and to the best of my memory did not) I never play about with any of the top parts of the page (I am not too sure what the varius formating codes do).[[
Slatersteven (
talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)]]
Could you enlighten me?[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)]]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 17:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment at the RfC on DemolitionMan. Please note, that the RfC needs one more editor to certify it before it can be accepted. If you would like to do so, please consider adding your signature below mine in the section labeled Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thanks. Ronnotel ( talk) 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven. Rereading your comments on the Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857 I sense that you were mislead on the meaning of the Hindi translation. Was the translation misrepresented? If yes, please do let me know. Thanks! -- RegentsPark ( talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
“For those of us who are multi-lingual, it is very handy to know what the term for these series of events in Hindi is as well. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)”
“Too bad. What is your reasoning for suggesting that "it is hardly necessary to put in the translation" - it is an India related article and English and Hindi enjoy official status of the Federal Govt - while languages like Marathi and Bengali are official languages of different states but not of the Federal Govt. I am putting it right back. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) “
This clearly gives the impresion it’s a translation, not an alterantiv name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_5#Hindi_text
“Correct me if I am wrong. This is what Wikipedia policy states: "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but names from languages which do not use a Latin alphabet, like Chinese and Russian, do." We have stated clearly in this article that there is no commonly used English name for these series of events. So based on the policy, shouldn't the transliteration of the name in the original language be used? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)” This states that it is a translation, not an alternative title. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]
Thanks!-- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats OK .[[
Slatersteven (
talk) 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]
The
February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 08:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, Not sure what to do with user:Desione who is making unhelpful edits on a number of British India history pages. He first appeared on February 14 on British Raj, a page I have been editing since October 2006. His talk page diatribes are full of words like "evil" etc. He has made a few edits, but his writing is so poor and the citations so unreliable ( here is an example), that I don't know how to proceed. Upon my return to Wikipedia in March after a longish winter break, I made my first edit in Indian Rebellion of 1857, since it is a parent article of one of British Raj's sections. The very next day, he appeared for the first time on that page, and you know that history. Then, when I went back to editing the Raj page (during one of "Indian Rebellion"'s lockdowns), and subsequently began to work on another section, he appeared on the parent article of that section, Company rule in India, for the first time, and has been confronting me there. Here is my last version of the page and here is what he has been reverting to. Compare the writing. Compare the quality of the references. And I am being accused of POV. Very frustrated. What should I do? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ihave to admit to some doubts about user:Desione, His style seems familiar, especially his use of ‘thank you’ when he believes he has made cutting point. But by that same token I have to assume good faith. So until I can see definite proof of wrong doing I shall do nothing. There is also the fact he seems to not be able to tell the difference between himself and DM.[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)]]
The
March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The
April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The
May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The
June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Slater, I have undone the edit you made deleting the disambig link I put in the article. Although I did not clearly understand what you meant by "not a clean up an addition, and is it a likely re-diection any way? N other book is listed in this way on the page", I am assuming you were under the impression this would be a redirect to the mutiny article itself. If this is correct then I'll point out that a seperate article exists on the book, which itself has some notabillity, and since it shares the name that a lot of Indian do use to describe, I believe a disambig is neccessary. I have reinstated the link, albeit slightly differently, but this should be satisfactory. Please leave me a message if you disagree. Thanks rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Slater, thanks for the message in the Talk:Hindu-German Conspiracy page. The name, date and page links to the ==notes== section which through the {{reflist}} template lists the author, publication date and page number. This is in turn linked through the harvard ciation templates to the literature section. It is a part of the {{ citation}} templates designed for use to cite references consistently. I realise this is a bit hard to understand, but you can see how it works in the main article page, as opposed to the editing version you're seeing. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello slater, thanks for the message and for taking the time to check the refs, I have now added the missing refs, which I thought I had added, but evidently hadn't. Thanks for your help, please let me know if you have anymore comments rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The
July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The
August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The September 2008
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please
vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The
September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I must apologize. I thought you were using a sock-puppet to basically patronize me. My apologies. I also apologize if I said anything out of line, I get carried away a lot over these kinds of things. I wouldn't mind continuing our debate, and I will try to be a little more civil. I just really love my country and I think that sometimes gets the better of me and I don't think before I say stuff. Sorry. Prussian725 ( talk) 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The
October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 01:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The
November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
hello! I lived a washington!! I don't like obama. obama is crazy!crazy!crazy!crazy!! hahahaha
how?? Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The
December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The
January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The
February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 07:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The
March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The
April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.- Binary TSO ???
I though I was in sandbox sorry[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)]]
Replied YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The
May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was curt in my last response. I disagree, first, that I was shouting, and that saying anyone is "anti-American" is an insult. Furthermore, you "templated the regulars" by copy and pasting rules; we know the rules, thanks, you can treat us like equals and discuss them rather than throwing them at us. I am trying to discuss his edits; you're the one who came along mistakenly thinking we weren't. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Monarchism is more democratic than political parties? Also your signature has too many brackets =/ 92.0.138.3 ( talk) 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Charles II-- Streona ( talk) 04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
G'day Steve. The reason I am writing is to let you know that there will be no more
United States edits from me!!
Thanks for the entertainment, buddy. I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions?
B. Fairbairn
Talk 20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
See this. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Slatersteven. B. Fairbairn Talk 9:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm just guessing, but it looks as if you're typing your signature by doing ~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">[[~~~~]]. Just to let you know that the brackets aren't necessary; typing four ~s is sufficient. Then again, if that was the effect you were aiming for, then disregard this. :) -- Golbez ( talk) 17:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find that there is now nothing in the article that is not referenced from a reliable source - whereas only a few days ago, most of the article was entirely unreferenced. If the article was GA or FA I would understand your concerns, but as it was when I came across it? Please. I have no desire to maintain the poor quality of articles. I will shortly be nominating it for GAN. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 13:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
for the second time. Do not edit my talk page again, I am not interested in what you have to say. I have better things to do. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 13:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm in a position now where I'd be happy to see this version replace Nick Griffin. If you have time, have a read through and let me know what you think. In addition to my comments on the Griffin talk page, I've substantially expanded his early NF career, corrected some mistakes (a Telegraph profile incorrectly stated he started the ITF in the early 80s), and moved some bits around. I still don't know what year he graduated, it should have been a 3 year course but I don't know yet. I think the [[unreliable source]] tags are very simple to remove, but that's probably best done once (if) the article is copied across - so other editors can see the source in the history. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The
June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring I have blocked you for a period of 1 day for edit-warring at Anti-Americanism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland ( talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Slatersteven/Archives/2016 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was never informed of this, and have had no chance to explain my actions, I also o9nly reverted 3 times (mainly becasue of the 3rr game play by another editor).
Decline reason:
Note that no warning is requisite when blocking for edit warring. If you want unblocked, read the guide to appealing blocks and formulate a proper request, though on the face of it you were edit warring and personally I'd learn the lesson and wait out the 23 hours or so left on this block period.
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.
Nja 247 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that I read that a warning is required if the person has never been blocked before. I'd encourage an admin to undo the block. If you haven't dealt with WebHamster, it's really impossible to know how much trolling and insulting he does. He leaves you no choice: you can't work toward consensus with someone who's abusive. Noloop ( talk) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please give me some diffs. I am very busy and don't have time to type a whole message. I will later. Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The
July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I hope you don't mind me moving your comments, it was making the whole thing much harder to read. Soxwon ( talk) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noloop Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for Arbitration Noloop and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I reported the mass deletion here. I'm not going to respond to his discussion on the talkpage; he's spouting nonsense and it's a waste of time. Doc Tropics 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago ( talk) 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
As a party to the Noloop arbitration case, I'm leaving you this note to let you know that I've extended the deadline in the Noloop case for the posting of the proposed decision. You now have until 13 September to present further evidence, or start presenting evidence. I've explained further here. If you have any questions, please ask there. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit? The names on the article were incorrect, and redirected to the correct ones anyway. TheoloJ ( talk) 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
on the birthday because the piece that ngo monitor is using as a source gets that info from us. [2] Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I just wanted to say that I'm glad we were able to put that bad business behind us, and both work constructively on this article. I think I could have handled things better than I did, so for the sake of future efforts I'd like to apologise if I ever caused any offence. There's no motive behind this other than a discussion I was reading about another, unrelated topic, which may descend into the type of argument we had. I've changed my working practices of late, I tend to write in my sandbox now and then invite criticism.
Anyway, I'm glad of your suggestions to the article, I think its improved massively over the last few months, due in no small part to your help. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 22:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I placed the photo there myself, with the original caption, if you'd care to get specific. For what it is worth, I have placed your edit of the actual shirt's caption back in there. A Sniper ( talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The
August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Just fyi, when you see a note like this "Published July 29, 2005, issue of July 29, 2005" at the top of a news article, it means that the article was published in the print edition. Historicist ( talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
So add the info to the page. That's how Wikipedia works. Historicist ( talk) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe there ought to be a way to briefly include NGO Monitor's main purpose as an organization as background information to the reader.-- 69.208.131.94 ( talk) 13:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting in the
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,
Roger Davies
talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If the sentence you recently added is a direct quote, then put it between quote marks. Thanks. AnonMoos ( talk) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I just replied to the Halloween comment if you want to discuss? Of the forest ( talk) 23:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you list any other proposals you might be comfortable with as well? I agree that tieing it to the controversy was important, just trying to gauge the opinions on a few versions from a few people. Thanks, -- 68.78.0.78 ( talk) 20:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
As a party to the Noloop arbitration case, I'm notifying you that I've made a proposal here to dismiss the case. Discussion is here. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The
September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Slatersteven, I saw that you removed the image of the Berlin Brigade patch from the Berlin Brigade page a few weeks ago. I just googled around a bid and to my surprise, it looks as if there are various versions from it. USAREUR got a different one than flickr. BerlinBrigade.com's version looks like the flickr version again. Which is now the real version? Ot were there more than one? Although I'm a Berliner, I'm from Spandau in the British Sector, so I can't really know. Would you eventually like to upgrade the image? BTW: The whole Berlin Brigade page is not accurate as the Berlin Infantry Brigade was never part of the US Berlin Brigade nor was it called Berlin Brigade once. What do you think about seperating the article into two? I got a lot of material here about the Berlin Infantry Brigade, I'd like to contribute, including a conplete list of the various earlier names of the Berlin Infantry Brigade. Kind regards -- BajanZindy ( talk) 14:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In light of the absence of Noloop ( talk · contribs) and the indefinite block of WebHamster ( talk · contribs), the two primary parties, this case is dismissed. If future problems arise (following the return or unblock of either or both editors), those problems should be dealt with by the opening of a new user conduct request for comment on the editor concerned. Requests for the Arbitration Committee to reopen this case would also be considered.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago ( talk) 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I would welcome your input here regarding the Google Earth section of the Loch Ness Monster article. Thanks. Adambro ( talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you've reverted my edits on the fascist nature of the BNP. Unfortunately, what you have done has gone back to a section which is inaccurate and not particularly informative. For example, despite what some disruptive editors argued in the talk page, the BNP has NOT been described as a "recalibration and modernization" of fascism in any of the sources quoted, or anywhere else for that matter! This was a deliberate misreading of one article's abstract by someone who never actually read the article itself! Further, to quote just one politician (Cameron) as calling them fascist is disingenuous - dozens have - and then to give three quotes for BNP denial is just pointless when one would do. This in itself suggests a distinct lack of balance. I can agree that a proper section on Fascism is needed in this article; however the current one is not it. For this reason, I have reverted to my version which I would ask editors to accept as a temporary measure which at least covers the issue until such time as we can come up with a decent section and not this nonsense.
You wrote on the discussion page: "As the fascism label is n the info box this deserves the same level of importance as racism or Anti-Semitism, its fundamental to those who oppose them". I agree, and think it also needs a mention in the introduction. After all, what most people know about the BNP is that it is condemned as fascist, so this should be up near the top. I think my intro para does this without going into detail. Let's get a good section where the detail can be expanded at the appropriate length. I've started a new section in the discussion where this can be discussed. Emeraude ( talk) 17:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it really a rule that you only archive after 7 days? I've never come across it. Francium12 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up
here, read up on the rules
here, and discuss the contest
here!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The
October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you've added the 2008 AfD for this article to today's log. I've deleted the entry - if you want to re-nominate the article, please follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO, using the afdx template (rather than afd1) on the article. Thanks. Tevildo ( talk) 18:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record I agree with your amendment. I was happier with that but other editors wanted the judgement phrase. -- Snowded TALK 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Please take care on the BNP article stephen as you have broken the 1RR condition and if the topic is so emotive to you that you would risk being blocked simply to replace caucasan then perhaps you should consider not editing the article as that would be preferable to a block. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Removal of very old material would be considered a revert if it was raised although you did it in good faith, If you want to remove old material I suggest a comment on the talk page to see if there is any objection and wait for others to comment and that will cover you back. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steven, just to let you know I posted at WP:ANI about this. Your mentioned in what I put but only as "an editor". I'm not asking you to do anthing unless you want to (in which case you're also welcome to), but I though I should let you know. Cheers. -- FormerIP ( talk) 23:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope my long addition to your question at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#When_is_a_revert_not_a_revert.2C_please_add_puchline this page doesn't divert attention to your question. I came to the talk page intending to ask about the definition of "reversion" and I was delighted to see that you had asked. I thought it would be best to piggy back on your question, but if respondents address mine and not yours, I'll help make sure they address both. I think your question is a tougher call, but I think it is not a reversion.-- SPhilbrick T 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Pl don't revert my restoration of the stable version. It is hardly arguable that Haloween is a "religious" occasion - it may have derived from a pagan religious festival. The onus is on those wishing to change the stable version to "take it to talk". Sarah777 ( talk) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a slow edit war here. Your insertion of material on the apologia for not fighting the course case was, per WP:BRD reverted as duplication. You should then have made the case for the change on the talk page, instead you have reinserted the material several times without that discussion. I tried for a compromise, but your response has been a reversion. I suggest you revert to the original and make your case on the talk page. If you don't I will. -- Snowded TALK 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Kindly do not post any more false accusations on my talk page, or ideally do not post there for any reason at all. 2 lines of K 303 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Indisputable though, I am occasionally checking what is going on at the article but it is such a vomit pit that it hardly seems worth the energy. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen, I notice your spelling or typing skill are almost as bad as mine, I enjoy the assistance of a spell checker on my browser, I recommend it to you, what browser do you use, IE or Firefox ? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the following sentence feels like it's missing something: "Through out his career on King James' Daemonlogie, and it has been suggested this indicates that one of his motivations was that he believed in the reality of witchcraft". The part before the comma doesn't seem to link to the part after. Nev1 ( talk) 19:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
hi, thanks for telling buddy ..... i will do it from now. الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 20:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The
November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The
December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if you could take a look at this. I've completely re-written it in the last week, and I'm trying to find good things to write about him. I can't. I can't find, anywhere, anyone who has something nice to say about him. Do you have any ideas? Parrot of Doom 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add weakly cited controversial content to the EDL article, this is a continuation of your previous attempt to link the BNP to the EDL with blogspots and weak citations. The threads are still available if you dispute this at the reliable source noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I for one would like to discuss any content that continues to be added that is weakly cited that enlarges the section that connects the two organizations. Feel free to add your desired additions on the talkpage for discussion. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the fact that we disagree about everything, I want to request you, please do not post on my talkpage again, thank you. I have a feeling that I have politely asked you this before, however I will make a note of this in my records and look forward to you respecting my wishes. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is No Cussing Club. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Cussing Club (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
My talk page is NOT comedy central. Haiduc ( talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your comments to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but at the moment I am more concerned with the large (or very large) sections of both European Universities Debating Championship and World Universities Debating Championship that seem to be drawn from this one domain. Codf1977 ( talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The
January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 04:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to revert your edit as the article is not to be edited until the copyvio issue is settled. You can put it on the talk page if you like. Dougweller ( talk) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
During a heated debate (no pun intended) on Talk:European Universities Debating Championship I had reason to suspect a bit of Sockpuppetry going on so filed this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singopo cue one amassing confession. Codf1977 ( talk) 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Since I have a dynamic IP, I'm taking the discussion to the talk page. -- 79.167.189.239 ( talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the
coordinator academy course and in the
responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The
February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
My apologises, I had an edit conflict, and accidently removed your comment, which I see that you have re-inserted. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The
March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Do not add fraudulent references, as you did in in this edit to 1989 Dewsbury race riot. Edits such as that have already contributed to one editor being community banned, and I will be happy to ask for admin action to be taken against you if you add another fraudulent reference at any point in the future. 2 lines of K 303 11:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Slatersteven ( talk) 14:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, – xeno talk 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Excessively_Brief&diff=359066099&oldid=359060210 this post?] I'm not sure what you meant by "without possible knowing it's false." I'm assuming you meant that the account wasn't necessarily created by the one who make the case (me) but I'm not sure. Can you clarify for me? Thanks, Auntie E. ( talk) 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, why do you think I should apologise to Mk? Auntie E. ( talk) 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The variable "nickname" needs to have a small "n" on it - it won't display with a large "N". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour,
Please go to article talk page [13].
Cordialement, -- Frania W. ( talk) 14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The
April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support when it seemed like everyone was against me. I realise that you don't agree with everything that I said, and I will admit that in my frustration, I may have let my emotions get the best of me on occasion. Still, it was very refreshing to see someone speak out against the attempt to get rid of me, at any cost, simply because I disagreed with others. Also, I would like to clarify why I did not answer the question that you posed to me on the Pershing talk page. Your question was, more or less, my statement, rearranged as an interrogative, and there wouldn't have been any need for you to ask it, were it not for the uncivil behaviour of another editor. I had stated that whilst I continued to disagree, the majority seemed to be against me, and that there would be little point in continuing to carry on with it. Dave, interested in the drama, and not the article, couldn't bear to see this, and attempted to lure me back into the fray with a completely innapropriate post. I didn't mean to disrespect you by ignoring your question. I just didn't want to "feed the trolls", and figured that it was best to not give him the satisfaction. All the best- Mk5384 ( talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is George Lee (British politician). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that these 2 pages should be deleted: Lega Padana Lombardia and Lombardy Project. As i've written in their "discussion" these parties don't exist actually and never existed in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.133.92 ( talk) 17:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Genocide_of_Ottoman_Turks_and_Muslims. Pcap ping 02:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that not all personalities are there, but I have other sources. try to read this short article about Petofy its good example: http://epa.oszk.hu/01400/01462/00019/pdf/181-189.pdf -- Samofi ( talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input; what's your opinion on requiring a citation for the list in the article? Eugene ( talk) 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The Soviet Union and the Chinese were not that interested in Vietnam, they provided weopons in an attempt to weaken their enemy American, but they were saw it as vital part of the cold war. Indeed, when America eventually "lost" the USSR and China had not won, indeed they ended up fighting the communist government for Vietnam a very short while later. It is very easy to argue that it was a war of independence, nothing more. Witty Beast ( talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I was merely stating that it isnt as clear cut as that as not all parties involved saw it as part of the Cold War. However you may be right. Witty Beast ( talk) 10:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
is it right to describe it as part of the cold war then? Diem was a puppet of France then America, but Ho was never a puppet of the USSR or China by any means. Witty Beast ( talk) 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The
May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you belive that anti-Americanism is only relevent if it can be proved irrefutably that the anti-Americans are soley motivated by hatred of the USA with no extraneous considerations? I.e. it is not any thing or qualities the Americans have but just their being American? Is anti-Amercianism only relevent if the anti-Americans have an essential hatred of a putative "americanism" uncontaminated with any (possibly false) qualities they ascribe to the Americans? I am English by the way...and drink tea...I know there are some misguided people who are anti-English but is it it just the tea drinking they are against? What I mean is - that can one divorce hatred of a particular nation from whatever (putative) qualities that that nation posseses? For instance if one says that "I hate loud mouthed Americans" - does that mean that (putatively) there are soft voiced Americans that one might love??? Colin4C ( talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
For your dispassionate and policy-based comment here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Made_bold_edit_to_lead RomaC ( talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Americanism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Noloop ( talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoned additions to the page. By the way, it's "grasp" not "crasp". (I felt the need to have a go at someone else's spelling :D ) Verbal chat 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. In order to avoid subsequent misunderstandings, I want to know your opinion (since I was engaged in a debate whether or not film falls under category of apocalipticism with you last time). In the article itself there's no mentioning that it's a post-apocalyptic film, well the term still and then wasn't that popular. Anyway, if your answer would be negative - I will reject it till you don't watch the film, and even after watching the film you will still keep your ground - ok, I won't add it to the article. Don't read the plot, like I said, you won't find any mentioning. But be sure, in the film there's an idea of post-apocalyptic world where the humankind was totally changed. If it's not an apocalypticism, then what (or is it necessary for the humanking to transform into zombies so only then it would be considered as post-apocalyptic film)? Besides, the film is pretty good. Userpd ( talk) 06:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD and just allow a little time for discussion - all you are doing is polarizing a debate when we should be having a discussion -- Snowded TALK 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
is a political designation. Please do not remove sources while there is ongoing dispute. Also be aware of the 3RR. Verbal chat 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a ban/topic ban proposal at AN/I. Obviously anyone who has worked with him should have a chance to express themselves here. Aside from people working on the Jesus article, I am not sure who else has worked with him, but if you know the right places to announce this please do. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Its on ANI there is no need top go announcing it all around, take care not to canvass. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a wrong click. As you probably saw I immediately reverted that revert. Garion96 (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Just to let you know that I've now come up with some draft text to include in the article, which I've posted on the NPOV noticeboard. Comments are welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The Request for mediation concerning English Defence League, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by
MediationBot, an automated bot account
operated by the
Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
This edit made me smile. I wonder if anyone will actually suspect a conflict of interest? TFOWR 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Call the police! Mr. Slater has fled the country and escaped to the UK!
Mr. Slater, you may be a folk hero but in the future, do not destroy company property by opening up the slide. At the very least, you should pay for repair. You could have waited for the jetway, like other people.
The press is calling you bisexual. Did you know that? Notslater ( talk) 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Were you drinking Blue Moon and sliding down the slide while you were typing this? "Another passanger, Howard Deneroff, has said that he idi not see Slater with a cut on his head. He has also dais he saw slater arguning wiht a women over her bag, which sllater was saying was too big and had to be checked." LOL – BMRR ( talk) 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Slater, please do not continue to alter or add to your comment at the RfC/U. As you can see someone agreed with your initial summary and now were forced to post that they do not agree with some of your additional points. If you need to make additional points please post a second summary or seek other advice on what to do. Once people start to post agreement with your summary it should not be edit as you are then changing that which someone might have agreed with. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to answer, I had a couple of RL issues plus the copyvio issue that took my attention. I did not intend to delete your !vote, I had no idea I did so. My apologies. GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
are never meant to be punitive. Not for me, not for Noloop, not for anyone. The purpose of a block is either to defuse a heated conflict or to encourage someone who flagrantly violates policy to observe how effective editors work together and to read up on policy. But blocks should not be thought of as punitive. I have been blocked, and i have blocked others, and I have never thought of it as punishment and I or whoever blocked me also made this clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the last time you equated blocking with punishment. here Slrubenstein | Talk 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Slater, please stop coming up with new and obnoxious ways of referring to Slrubenstein. These are indeed insulting and indeed nothing but veiled name calling. In American English a "rubber" is a condom, and I've already told you that "Sluber" sounds like "slobber". If you do not stop doing this you deserve an incivility block yourself. Stop being so childish. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Steven, I think you should take Griswaldo's comment more seriously than that. A number of editors over there already seem to be demonstrating a lack of patience and I don't think calling people things other than their names is a good idea. I appreciate you are not Mavis Beacon (which I am not criticising you for, and wouldn't), so maybe shortening a name is okay, but not coining nicknames. PS: "Noloop" also only has one l. -- FormerIP ( talk) 14:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
"Or its something you use to rub something out. Or a material that is used in many manafacturing process. AFG" Slatersteven, can you please explain to me what "AGF" means in this context? What is the "good faith" interpretation of you callimg me Rubbers? Are you saying that you wish to use me "to rub something out?" Or are you saying that I am "a material that is used in many manufacturing process" (sic)? I am quoting your own words, so I assume these are your explanations for calling me Rubbers. But what kind of "good faith" could justify your identifying me with an eraser or a material used in manufacturing? Why do you call me Rubbers? You want us to assume good faith? Well, I am assuming good faith by asking you, politely, why do you call me Rubbers, or Sluber? Slrubenstein | Talk 07:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
please stop edit warring , thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya. Someones found a fair few sources for this now. Do you still want to keep your delete vote or are you happy for the AfD to be closed as keep and save the bureacracy? Quantpole ( talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there sufficient assertion of notability at Salamat Sadykova now, in your opinion? If so and you withdraw your delete !vote, we can WP:SPEEDYKEEP the AfD. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Your removal of the Hefferman material when there was clearly no consensus for the act is a disruptive edit. Further, since you previously added to the material in the lede when you believed a source existed to portray it in a negative manner, then suddenly removed it entirely when the source was shown false, a case can be made for intentional bias, as well as disruptive editing.
There appears to be consensus to move the material from the lede to the body, but not to remove it entirely. Please self revert, and restore the material. Fell Gleaming talk 21:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
[14]. That's how we know it really was her. It's a confirmed Twitter account. ScienceApologist ( talk) 07:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27 Zuggernaut ( talk) 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate, as I think all readers do, your effort to clean up your quick first draft and repair your inadvertent typographical errors. Please note however that your most recent (1) effort appears to have removed some errors only to replace them with different errors whilst neglecting others. This was just a friendly note of thanks, as a reader, for your efforts - combined with an observation produced to support and improve your work. Thank you. 99.144.248.213 ( talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Hello, I introduced an article to Wikipedia on Amy Elizabeth Thorpe. You wrote on the talk page words to the effect that the sources indicating her role in WW2, (especially where Enigma is concerned) should be included even if others dispute them. I agree with you. I am in a long discussion with another editor, Nihil Novi, who seems obsessed with making sure none but Poles take credit for helping with Enigma in WW2, while I am fine including both the sources that mention Poles and sources that mention other Enigma help.
Leidseplein ( talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the assistance in Challenger Deep. More so, I appreciate the integrity you've displayed. I've seen many editors (including a couple of admins) who have conflicted with me in the past choose to "take the other side" in such debates, merely to do a past opponent one in the eye. Fell Gleaming talk 13:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Challenger Deep, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 13:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FellGleaming. Thank you. — Viriditas ( talk) 13:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm taking this discussion off the talk page of the climate change arbitration and onto this user talk page because it's a peripheral matter that by its nature is unlikely to be actionable (the kind of protection proposed is against our policies) and because you seem to have misunderstood me and you sound quite angry about what you think I mean. My fault, I should have been much clearer. We don't normally fully protect articles for a number of good reasons each of which is rather persuasive on its own.
Firstly, the Wiki is open to all and every article without exception benefits from edits added in passing. Bad edits and vandalism are quickly identified and easily removed, so the articles improve. Phrasing is polished,emphasis and balance tweaked, sections are added and expanded, and so on. It's easy to overlook the fact that this happens even while disputes are discussed on the talk page, provided all editors avoid edit warring. (to be continued) Tasty monster (= TS ) 15:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Conversely full protection forfeits those benefits, and when done in the absence of edit warring no benefit accrues to the article to make up for the loss of open editing. Open editing may seem like a recipe for chaos but in practice you end up with pretty good articles, most noticeably and perhaps surprisingly in science topics where our quality has been highly praised by expert commentators comparing us to the best non-free encyclopedias. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I do of course think it's good to protect an article over a dispute if edit warring breaks out (though as a matter of policy I tend to favor blocking the warring parties in an isolated dispute in the hope that others can continue to edit the article harmoniously.) Again, apologies for a sarcastic retort that failed to take into account the differing levels of experience on Wikipedia. The crucial advantages of open editing have been made clear by the experience of offshoots like Citizendium that adopted a closed or deferred model, as well as similar predecessors like Nupedia and H2G2. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
On the nature of the dispute, basically it's an extension of external conflicts by other means. That doesn't have to happen--if you look at the evolution articles you'll see that despite the widespread public controversy over evolution in the United States and to a lesser degree elsewhere both the science articles and the articles about the disputes are not subject to the same level of torment. We'd like to get to the point where the same applies to climate change. It's no more a content dispute than evolution versus creationism. Wikipedia can only follow scientific consensus, it can't and shouldn't level the playing field. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
If there are any permanently or long-term fully protected articles anywhere on Wikipedia it's news to me, but I'll investigate this before commenting further. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't argue with somebody who doesn't accept that semiprotection is very different from full protection. Assuming you do recognise the distinction, I think there is probably a good argument to be made for semiprotecting all climate change articles either indefinitely or for a long period, but as the argument has never been made the attempts to do that have failed. I could probably successfully argue for that but I don't see it as a sensible long term strategy. The articles are watched so closely that semiprotection is largely redundant.
The recent switch of the libertarianism article from long term semiprotection to full protection with the same period is intriguing but not persuasive as to policy or wisdom. Tasty monster (= TS ) 17:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to correct you on one matter. Semiprotection is no use against edit warring. It's only effect is to force unregistered editors to register an account, make a very small number of edits, and wait a few days. Malicious editors have been known to register many accounts months or years in advance in a futile attempt to overwhelm Wikipedia's immune system. It doesn't work in practice because they get blocked for sock puppetry, but the same principle applies to all editors. Register an account and within a few days anybody can edit every semiprotected page on the Wiki. The assumption is that most casual vandals will go elsewhere to get their jollies. Tasty monster (= TS ) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, my computer had trouble loading the page, so my edit somehow got submitted twice. In case you got the wrong idea, since your edit summary sounds a tad sarcastic. Which from my experience on WP, can be provocative at times. Just wanted to point this out. Cheers, ANG CHENRUI WP:MSE ♨ 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have started a new section on Talk: Indian Rebellion of 1857headed Explanation for large variety of Nomenclature. Please comment there on my proposed alteration. I have taken on board that you "preferred the old version" from your edit summary for your revert, but I would prefer a less subjective response if you are able. I have reinstated my new version, which will be subject to revision in the normal way once I receive your more substantial reasoning. Please reply at Talk: Indian Rebellion of 1857. Regards. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 16:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC))
Hi since you were involved in the discussion, I thought you might to see this and vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranshenasi -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
Not sure if you are aware of this, but the bit about the time traveler kerfuffle will always be in the article, even if disproven, shown as hoax or - lol - actual proof of time travel. Once something is reported on by reliable notable media, it becomes notable forever. I get the impression that you feel that if you denigrate the reportage of the topic enough, it will simply be removed from the article. You need to understand that that will never happen, in accordance with wiki policy and guidelines. If you are unclear on this, ask an admin, or use one of our many fine noticeboards to seek out additional input. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thought I'd point out that you are at 3RR for the day. One more revert and you can be blocked. I'd advise you to stick to the article discussion page. I am constantly astounded that people think that edit-warring actually works. The only thing it can actually do is get you blocked. Please stop reverting. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I know you are relatively new, but going to another user's talk page to talk peaceably and then accuse that user of gaming the system is bad form, and I take exception to the accusation. I've purged your comments from my talk page. If you feel like apologizing for the bad faith remark, you are welcome to post again. Otherwise, you need not post to my talk page anymore. thanks in advance. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 13:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Slater, but Scotty felt the irresistible need to take one more swing; I shan't post after this. Scotty, you are working my last nerve. I chastised Slater for accusingme of gaming the system, which is patently incorrect. When he failed to apologize for the accusation, I asked him to not post to my page again. Not sure how that involves you, precisely, but maybe you should seriously consider not stalking my edits - people get blocked for that. I've proven you dreadfully wrong on matters of both policy and behavior. You can't admit it. Got it. Now, kindly stick a cork in it and go edit something. I hear The Circus (film) could use some help. Full stop,
Again, I am sorry, Slatersteven, for using your page to respond to Scotty's continuing little rant. He can stay off my page, too. And I'll point out that since you took a little more time to check your posts, they have been pretty easy to read. Thanks for the effort. :) -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 15:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting really tired, but maybe it's because I went to the dentist today. I don't mind a good debate, but this is going in circles. The guy doesn't even get it when we agree with him. Eastcote ( talk) 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I answered your question on the NPOV noticeboard here and was hoping I could get your opinion. Thanks. Yobol ( talk) 14:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Just as an aside, you've used odd linking in this thread - Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF. if it's a link within wikipedia, use doubled brackets and delete the first (http:// through 'wiki') portion of the link [[Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF]]. if it's an external link, use single brackets and the full path [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF]. see help:link
Slater - I have asked you again to provide diffs to support your statement that "We have multtiple broadsheet RS calling them left wing". At the moment my count is one. -- Snowded TALK 22:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We have to fight this labelling. It's preposterous that they should be given this labelling on an open encyclopaedia! Alexandre8 ( talk) 18:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I undid any of your edits to English Defence League as I was undoing the removal of a section performed in an earlier edit by JzG. __ meco ( talk) 19:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me know what comment you want removed and I will strongly consider it (probably remove it).
Are you related to the Jet Blue flight attendant that blew his stack and slid down the slide, quit his job, and got into trouble? MVOO ( talk) 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The creator wishes to compromise with you about the small section of "Reawakening" listed on List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction Pandemic = Comics and Manga.
Thus, I have created this section on your page - I myself do not have anything to do with this.
-- 216.99.102.172 ( talk) 22:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.99.102.172 (
talk) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello I'd like to contact you about my comic "Reawakening". I do not know why many people are thinking it is dead when I make weekly updates on the comic's progress on Facebook. Second I'd like to compromise to see If I could possibly make a page regarding "Just what is Reawakening?" I will provide refrences to sites that ahve featured my comic(3 in total), and photos of pictures I have made for it. Thoughts? Daspletosaurus 5000 ( talk) 22:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I am 216.99.102.172 --
TeensOfTheDownfall (
talk) 23:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I will hereon agree to the deletion of my page Epidemic (Novel) until the writing stage is complete. In the request that User:TeensOfTheDownfall/Epidemic_(Novel) remain up for personal edits. (It will not be linked to on any other page here on Wikipedia)
Sod all to do with me I was just offering advice.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This editor has repeatedly called me a liar during this debate. He has been sanctimonious and sarcastic throughout, and has been warned about this kind of behavior before on previous debates by other editors. If he wishes to report me he is welcome, any reasoned look at the exchanges will implicate him as well.
Regardless, I'm off to cool down and I appreciate the guidance. V7-sport ( talk) 22:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Er, take what to AN/I, precisely? Are you talking about the differences of opinion in The Circus? If so, you might be confused with the differences between mediation, noticeboard discussions and actual user conduct complaints (for which AN/I is reserved). - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Steven! I don't know which post you mean, but it must have been an error. Please restore it or tell me where it is and I'll restore it. -- FormerIP ( talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently, you are at 3 reverts in the Time travel urban legends article, and 3 reverts in The Circus. Please be aware that any subsequent reverts on your part will result in you being reported for edit-warring and 3RR. Please consider this your sole warning on this matter. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC) As previously noted, these two edits place you in violation of the 3RR rule prohibiting excess reverts. You might want to self revert your last two edits in Time travel urban legends in a timely manner. I will wait a very limited amount of time before reporting you to AN/3RR. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You might want to read that bit that says a revert is an edit that undoes antothers work. Many of the edits you claim are reverts re-wrtire material I had added and do not infact alter any one elses material. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would email me. I'd email you but your email is not activated. ScottyBerg ( talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Time travel urban legends is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Cheers. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
|
I just wanted to let wikipedia editors know that the British National Party has a new logo that has replaced the former logo still being shown in the British National Party wiki article. 92.25.150.186 ( talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Airfix, Atlantic or Britains? 1/32 or 1/72? :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕)) 21:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Is there anything I can do to help you utilize the spell check features of your browser? Viriditas ( talk) 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to bring your attention to your error here. Cordially, SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stephen, where is the UAF founding statement that those people signed? Off2riorob ( talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate your enthusiasm concerning this article, and I do agree with your points, but I'd try to be a little more cautious of making your points and edits a bit clearer on the page, especially during a tumultuous time like this. Thanks!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In case you haven't been following the discussion(s) close enough, evidence has been provided, [21] [22] however, it is not acceptable to put it on-wiki because the identity and privacy of the user comes first. My attempt to protect Jack Sebastian is a far cry from "disingenuous". Viriditas ( talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please forgive my error, if I have put this in the wrong place. This is a difficult posting format, both to navigate and to edit, especially when one is more used to forums and discussion groups which use more standardized formats, controls, commands and functions,(IE: PHPbb, email, etc). I am simply addressing you to ask if I am allowed to directly give my input on the ANI discussion to give firsthand answers to the questions you put to Gyrofrog, since some of those questions can only be accurately answered firsthand on points where Gyrofrog, for lack of intimate knowledge of me and my motives, can only presume. for one case in point, it is true that I have (deliberately) not tried to re-insert reverted edits because I have learned that to do so is against established protocol, which I am trying, as best I can, not to violate. I have learned that when a point is challenged, debated and/or reverted that it must be resolved and permission granted BEFORE it MAY be re-inserted. My refusal to re-insert was meant as a sign of genuine good faith. After reading what you have said thus far, I am very grateful that I was notified of the ANI Discussion or else I'd not have seen that you seem to genuinely try to be fair and open to the possibility that perhaps Gyrofrog misinterpreted or misunderstood something, such as my intent, etc. I tried to explain in my first response to his reversion notice (on his talk page) that I had already given third party sources which cover not one but multiple points made in my edits and that I did not insert a ref link for each point, thinking that such redundant cites of the same source might be against protocol and unnecessary, when the reader has already been referred to read said sources already. If I was being overly frugal, I apologize. Another thing is that when I told him "I myself AM a source" the interpretation he tells you on the ANI page shows clearly that he has eisogeted a false meaning into that statement. I did not say "I am THE source" but just "a source", because of the fact that I am intimately familiar with my own people and my own faith and the joint history thereof both. It was no different than if one of the 50 translators of the King James Version had said that he is a source on how the job of translation was done. It is not a claim of exclusivity and this is why eisogesis is a bad practice. I always tell those whom I tutor that the practice of eisogesis (to read your own interpretation into a text) is never an acceptable method for interpreting any non-fictional text. It is contrary to the rules of proper hermeneutics because to do so instantly turns the context into a pretext and all too often a false pretext at that. I also could not help noticing from your profile, that we are both monarchists. I have been lobbying for the monarchy to be restored in Abyssinia patterned more after that used in the UK, which has proven to be a most successful model,(as monarchism goes). Had that been the case under Emperor Selassie early on, perhaps the Marxist regimes of Mengistu and Zenawi might have been avoided. Selassie did try to model his monarchy more like Britain after WWII, but by that time the seeds of discontent were already being sown among Ethiopian school faculties and in Eritrea. But I am digressing from the subject at hand. I'd be willing to discuss politics, if you like, some other more appropriate time and forum. But it does show me why, perhaps, you seem to be more reasonable and fair minded when examining issues, for which I am grateful as I have not encountered that on Wikipedia before and it is quite refreshing.
So I will not input anything to the ANI discussion until you tell me that it is permitted. I'd much rather you email any questions you may have and I'd be glad to address them. But please, remember, sometimes you get better information from inside, rather than outside, observers and scholars, because of their familiarity with the subject matter. One would expect an Anglican Bishop to know his own faith better than,(just for example), a Pentecostal from rural Kentucky, might know the Anglican church. Hands on experience does indeed make one a valid source of knowledge than someone far removed and much less familiar. If that were not true, then one may as well trust one's local auto mechanic to perform one's dentistry. I do not intend that in a flippant way, it is just a statement using the same logic that would deny that an Messianic Aksumite Jew would know more about his own than one who has little familiarity.
Lastly, for now, it is not an illegitimate practice to use more commonly understood terminology when trying to explain something to the outside world, especially since the outside world have already decided to use the incorrect terminology. When I allowed "Kes", used by someone else, to remain in a given text instead of using the more correct term "Kahane", that is most likely what I had in mind, because for one thing, Kes is how outsiders spell it, not the correct transliteration, which I always do as "Qes". I rarely will use a K instead of a Q to transliterate the Ge'ez character ቄ because Q is technically the only correct English equivalent and that is why there is more than one character in both languages with the same sound, more specifically the English letter K would correspond not to the Ge'ez character ቄ , but instead to the Ge'ez character as is properly used, for example, at the end of my surname. I also understood that ቄስ (Qes) is one of the two most understood terms meaning "priest" among my main target audience, Habesha people. The other being አባ (Aba, usually mistransliterated as Abba). The difference being only that Qes is a married priest and Aba is a celibate priest (IE: a monk). But when trying to explain something so that even the most simple person in one's target audience can understand, sometimes one has to make concessions or else one would need to write an extensive glossary, especially when the target audience is from a nation that speaks EIGHTY languages as we have in Abyssinia! That is yet another reason to allow for more common terminology even if it is not the most correct. One needs to not be too petty when trying to reach a widely mixed audience. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, who "took great pains to strain at a tiny gnat but had no qualms about swallowing a [whole unkosher] camel" (paraphrased to show intent). The unfortunate fact of the matter is that things are rarely transliterated 100% correctly between different scripts and the only way to fix this is to correct it but sometimes that can be a distraction from the real point, thus making one feel it may be better to let it pass to maintain focus upon the real point at hand. So I am admitting to being inconsistent for the sake of convenience and for the sake of not digressing, in the Kes vs Kahane issue which Gyrofrog has seized upon. I knew what I was doing when I left Kes in the text. I was more concerned with the facts and context. So on that one I must plead "guilty with an explaination".
As for credentials to show I am called to the position I assert, I have the same credentials Shmuel received from Eli, that Natan received from Shmuel... a lot of scented holy oil smeared upon my head by my late predecessor, Yohannes Anteneh YeFat'ari. Sorry if anyone was expecting to see some parchment with an embossed seal, but that is not how it works for us. We are a bit old fashioned that way. We are the kind of people who think that a mans word and handshake trumps a stack of affidavits and yes, we also think that the bible is really all true, which itself certifies us as "peculiar", to put it politely, though the liberal media would prefer the term "nuts", I am sure. But I just deal with such negative criticism as water on a swan's back and am more interested in that which is constructive and productive.
Amasaganalu (Thank you). [Menilek] ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful answers and advice. Unfortunately, my busy duties do not permit me to be on here every day and I've lost the whole ANI discussion when it went to the archives. Also, as a head official in a globally scattered faith, I'm very busy with such duties and seeing that this Wikipedia thing is proving to be much more of a work burden than I have time to cope with or than I bargained for, I may need to set it all aside and get someone else to submit edits on my behalf who is more familiar with how this all works. I just do not have the time and my health is not well, so the info I wanted to contribute may well even be lost soon, when I am replaced by the oncoming generation. But I will try to produce records with references even if it all just becomes shelved and must be handled and finished by others in the future. I must look after my more immediate duties to my people while I still can do so. Again, thank you for your attempt to help. [Menilek] ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 13:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thought you should know User:Epeefleche (not unexpectedly) has removed the disclaimer you added after my WP:RS noticeboard report on Valery Shary ( [25]), claiming the disclaimer to be "non-notable" (whatever that means). He also added two more sources which both use Eisen's list as their source (as can be viewed in the appendix of each book) and makes it seem like they're three separate sources by using the words "in addition." It's such a worthlessly small article that I really don't feel like bringing it back to the WP:BLP noticeboard... but I figured this is a good way for people to see the tactics this user constantly engages in when editing Jewish BLPs. Bulldog123 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for running it by me, and apoligies for not running it by you: WP:AN/I#Hauskalainen-- FormerIP ( talk) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You've been asked by administrators to avoid reverting my edits, considering the rather inhospitable nature of our past interactions. Please respect that request, and stay away. This is a gentle reminder, not a warning; with any luck, such will not become necessary. Thank you for your cooperation and use of spellcheck. I do not need a response, as this is not an initiation to discussion. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why does the BNP have so much interest in the borough of Barking and Dagenham? It seems to be their most valuable council, but i fail to understand their strong interests. There are hundreds of councils in and around London. There are several countries all over Britain. Why Barking and Dagenham? Telegraph: BNP in Barking and Dagenham Pass a Method talk 09:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. There currently is a dispute and I was wondering if you could please chime in with your opinion on the matter to help get an idea of consensus exists for this rather big change. I see you are an active editor on the article. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#Very_long 67.169.68.203 ( talk) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 04:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson ( talk) 14:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
|
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You missed a few here. I'd fix them, but don't want to intrude. Figured you might want to know since you came back to get the one... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Taiwan, you may be blocked from editing. Per long-standing consensus, Taiwan is the island, ROC is the nation damn it. If you revert twice more, I will be adding your name to AN3 as well. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 23:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The manifesto was emailed in DOCX format. All the DOCX formats floating around are 1,516 pages. The PDF made by Kevin Slaughter from the original DOCX and which became popular was 1,518 pages. That PDF was notably missing the table of contents found in the original DOCX and added additional blank pages. Pristino ( talk) 14:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do you feel the need o mention breivik is a zionist in the lead? His video upload did not mention zionism or anything related to Israel. His police report did not mention anything remotely related to zionism. His activity prior to the attack did not have anything related to zionism. The article already states he is pro-israe. Doesn't yor edit conflict with WP:UNDUE ? Please don't revert me until you have explained your edit - i will be watching closely. Thanks Pass a Method talk 14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay lets try to get consensus in the tlk page. Pass a Method talk 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
See [26]. Less typos give comments more weight in a discussion. ;-) Cs32en Talk to me 13:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by June 9, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
At RSN, one editor asserted that Polar Review republished the book making it not SPS <g>. Problem is, his cite is for page 384 of the Polar Review which is the review itself. This has muddied the SPS fact a bit, alas. You might wish to look t the discussion again, as the one editor pushing the book has basically simply resorted, IMHO, to ad homs now. Cheers - I do not expect to edit that article after this sort of muddying of the issue. Cherrs and thank you. Collect ( talk) 13:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
[27] You do realise I was asking for advice about my own use of the source? How is that tit for tat and where is your presumption of good faith? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree this edit is ungrammatical and improperly formatted? If so, should someone revert it? Pass a Method talk 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 18:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
As someone who strives to follow NPOV, I find his remarks very unhelpful but rarely feel strong enough about such remarks to go to WQA - this time I did. Not confronting edits that raise tension unnecessarily is a mistake IMHO. BTW stroll by Talk:War of the Pacific. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
– Richard BB 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Re [28], it's best to either raise the issue directly with the editor on the user's talk page, or raise the issue at Wikiquette Alerts. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Have you ever heard of grammar or spelling? You see, I would try to take on board what you're saying if I could actually understand it! Why don't you have another go and see if you make yourself more understandable? And remember, punctuation is your friend! 4567treminater ( talk) 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Eurgh! A comma splice and a missing apostrophe! How hideous. 4567treminater ( talk) 16:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear Lord, I love self-important people on the internet who dish out warnings as if they actually matter! 4567treminater ( talk) 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Call you an offensive name? Sir, I would never stoop that low. At the risk of contradicting myself, only morons resort to that kind of behaviour. No, I can do much better than that! 4567treminater ( talk) 16:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Once again, you're making the mistake of thinking that I care. 4567treminater ( talk) 16:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
4 people agree with a redirect, Me, you, Sean and verbal. What should i do? Pass a Method talk 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you seem to be a regular contributor at WP:NPOVN. I respectfully request your expertise in the matter described here: [30] We seem to be deadlocked. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot ( talk) 08:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page.
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Nominations for the " Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 10:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited British Freedom Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BNP ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Whilst I don't agree with everything you suggest, I appreciate working with an editor willing to discuss until a mutual consensus is agreed. Sadly too rare these days. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
Appritiated.
Slatersteven (
talk) 23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 02:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Slatersteven/Archives/2016. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
In case you didn't know, NATO is having their host Summit in Chicago. They are having exercises through the city (i.e. flying Littlebirds and Black Hawks). I cited the source; I am confused on what you are objecting to. Please iterate. -- True Skepticism ( talk) 18:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 00:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 15:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, I'd really appreciate your input in the Falklands sovereignty talk page. I really trust your criteria so, even though I truly feel that my edit is far less convoluted than Wee's, if you think his edit is more convenient I'll end my involvement in the discussion. Thank you! Gaba p ( talk) 23:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 19:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 09:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 01:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators ( about the project • what coordinators do) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project and/or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Nick-D (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 21:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Nick-D (
talk) and
Ian Rose (
talk) 03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, just letting you know I made some minor corrections to your edits in the Ceasefire of 21 November section. Cheers! Gaba p ( talk) 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Slatersteven. I notice you have commented at Talk:Falkland Islands#Sovereignty dispute - Change in sentence, so I picked your name as somebody who could give me an opinion. It seems to me that a lot of article reverts have happened recently. It seems very worthwhile that people are having a structured discussion to agree on a solution. If the continued reverts are a discouragement to the efforts at compromise, do you think it would be of use to put the article under full protection until a conclusion is reached on talk? Thanks for any comment, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven,
A courtesy note to let you know that I made some minor changes to your posting to make it more readable. I trust that this is in order. Martinvl ( talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, since the discussion over at that article has taken other paths I though I'd ask you here. Would you like to propose an edit for the position of Spain? As I said, I'd have no problem in moving it to the "neutral or calling for negotiations" section. Would that be ok to you? I believe the mention of Gibraltar is of most importance given the similarities and the importance of Spain in the Falklands conflict; do you think it should be removed? If you don't want to get involved in this argument I'll understand. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 17:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, I see you reverted here the remove OAS and UN. I added them because they are directly mentioned in the quote by the Seretary of State (translated): "Spain shares with Argentina its position over the Falklands. It has done so for a long time and this is expressed in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OAS and United Nations" (bolded by me). Wouldn't you say my edit is a fair representation of this quote? Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 15:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 04:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I've restarted the article Press Play on Tape WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
What function does this topic serve? I need a sense of which languages to translate my client's website to first. My client would prefer the most "affluent" languages. Bugloaf ( talk) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I have already addressed the editors and would-be editors by explaining to them my revert. Does it even sound biased? I have explained there that I have worded it in such a way giving benefit of doubt to my insertion.
Pcbyed ( talk) 12:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 00:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
please see talk ww1- I think you mistyped. Gravuritas ( talk) 11:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
|
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)