User talk:Lugnuthemvar: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:18, 27 July 2014 editEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →Reverting at 2006 Lebanon War: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:15, 28 July 2014 edit undoShrike (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,544 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2006 Lebanon War. (TW)Next edit →
Line 168:		Line 168:

	Please note that ] is covered by the ARBPIA ] rule. There is a large notice on its talk page about this. Editors who make two reverts in 24 hours may be blocked. If you intend to make a and you believe that such a change improves neutrality, it would be logical for you to employ the talk page to explain your reasoning. So far you have not commented on the article talk page. Thank you, ] (]) 13:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)		Please note that ] is covered by the ARBPIA ] rule. There is a large notice on its talk page about this. Editors who make two reverts in 24 hours may be blocked. If you intend to make a and you believe that such a change improves neutrality, it would be logical for you to employ the talk page to explain your reasoning. So far you have not commented on the article talk page. Thank you, ] (]) 13:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

			== July 2014 ==
			] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

			To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. {{Break}}''You was already warned and yet you reverted please self revert''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (])/] 08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:15, 28 July 2014

Do you have any proof of what you claim (that NDF is headed by army officers)?--HC PUNXKID 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The NDF has offices in government-controlled cities across Syria. Residents say many have training centers run by Syrian officers. in the link i provided on the talk pageLugnuthemvar (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Iraq War edits

Hi, I think the deletion you have done on the Iraq War page is quite reasonable. However, I would draw your attention to WP:3RR, the 3 revert rule which says no one can revert an edit three times in 24 hours. Whether you agree with this rule or not, it is likely to be used to get you blocked, so I suggest you are mindful of the reversions you do, and engage in discussion of the issues on the talk pages. If you put up arguments there no one is allowed to take them down, and a rational argument will usually win out in the end. Keep up the good work. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuthemvar, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Lugnuthemvar! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Al-Otaiba ambush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lebanese and Chechen

45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sokolniki

Black Sea Fleet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Kerch Strait

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have queried your revert of my edit

I have queried your revert of my edit here. I would appreciate an explanation there. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Western Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Don, Tula, Bear Lake, Pechenga, Kamenka, Luga and Gorelovo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Simferopol Incident

I thought that perhaps you'd like to give your opinion about the deletion of Simferopol Incident article. Have a nice day. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simferopol_incident Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 3rd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Komsomolsk, Argun and Shali (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) 08:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Georgy Shpak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Baltic, Rodina and Sergey Ivanov

Comando Raggruppamento Subacquei e Incursori Teseo Tesei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lebanon War and UNOSOM

Viktor Chirkov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pacific Fleet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 56th Guards Air Assault Brigade may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

In December 1979, the brigade was relocated to the ] and joined the ].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spetsnaz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Spetsgruppa "B" (''Vympel'')''' or '''Vega''', among other names) was formed in 1981, merging two elite Cold War-era ] special units—Cascade (''Kaskad'') and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

MOD and non-MOD armed forces

I had a long discussion with the senior Russian expert and Editor of the Military Balance back on the subject of Russian services at the IISS in 2001. I asked him why, for example, a bunch of the militarised forces, organised on military lines and armed, were not listed in the Military Balance. He said they had to draw the line somewhere, and the line they drew was MOD/non MOD armed forces. We write here at Misplaced Pages for the generalist, not the specialist, and we would not be adding the FBI's HRT or the CIA's SAD to the list of military special forces units. For that reason I believe we should stick to MOD armed forces for Russia on the SF page. Even if so, in any case, until you add a citation specifically saying the FSB units are legally armed forces, no doubt they may be removed as unreferenced (WP:BURDEN) given the culling that has occurred for lack of references on that page. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The IISS's rule has not changed, whether in 2001 or today. To be honest, I'd take that over a vague rule over some chat over the internet. Also, do not remove citation needed tags - that's against policy. You will face sanctions if you do so again. The only thing that one is allowed to do in that case is to provide a citation. I am determined to clean up that page, and I have User:Nick-D's support. You're quite free to help, but you must follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Buckshot's approach, and other editors have made similar clean ups in the past. I'd be happy to discuss the grounds for inclusion/exclusion of different units on the article's talk page though, of course. Reggards, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We need to stick to the page title. Of course, other pages can always be created, as you will see with the list of subsidiary pages under the intro text. The page title defines the subject, and that subject needs to be support with reliable sources, including citations. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

56th Guards Air Assault Brigade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Soya, Tula, Panjshir, Mor, Logar and Khanabad

Eastern Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Chita, Komsomolsk, Severnyy, Gornyy, Nikolskoe and Amur

Southern Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Troitskaya, Aksai and Shali

Central Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Samara

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Marine Corps Critical Skills Operator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War in Afghanistan (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) 08:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Mexicans of European descent. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

June 2014

Your recent editing history at Mexicans of European descent shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Retartist (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Please see the result of the edit warring complaint. The next person who reverts the article at Mexicans of European descent is risking a block without further notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 23 2014

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Canadian usage is soccer. That's why it's there. Piping is the correct usage. I suggest you self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

the proper usage is not canadian. that's just a nick for the sport. Also i highlighted the usage after the proper usage everywhereLugnuthemvar (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you're up for edit warring. I'll join that discussion shortly.

However, if you look at this edit, you're piping a term to itself and that's clearly wrong form and will be fixed by a bot or another editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

When discussing a Canadian subject, the correct usage is Canadian. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

except association football isn't a canadian subject. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lugnuthemvar. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football‎‎.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is particularly bad since it not only violates WP:ENGVAR it also violates WP:NOTUSA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

only if i force one over the other. i didn't. I added the US/Canadian terms as well. you're freaking out over nothing Lugnuthemvar (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really freaking-out, just frustrated that you don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Did you read ENGVAR and NOTUSA? While you're reading, take a look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Linking. Based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Association football, you have a lot of other pipes to fix like those that simply list "football" and those that go through "football (soccer)". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lugnuthemvar reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, my name's Lord Roem. After reviewing a report on the edit warring noticeboard, it appears you and another user may be engaged in an edit war over added content to the page. This is a warning, given to both users, to stop reverting each other and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page. If this continues, you both may be blocked. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior

First, the two sources cited in the military casualties section made no mention of 29 dead. Second, calling me a smartmouth is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy on civility and assuming good faith. Third, if you gave me a chance I would have provided a proper source which says 29 dead soldiers which you didn't provide earlier. Which I have added at this moment. EkoGraf (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverting at 2006 Lebanon War

Please note that 2006 Lebanon War is covered by the ARBPIA WP:1RR rule. There is a large notice on its talk page about this. Editors who make two reverts in 24 hours may be blocked. If you intend to make a prominent change to the infobox and you believe that such a change improves neutrality, it would be logical for you to employ the talk page to explain your reasoning. So far you have not commented on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Your recent editing history at 2006 Lebanon War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You was already warned and yet you reverted please self revert Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)