| Revision as of 03:52, 1 November 2006 editDeleted User 200017778 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,043 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:35, 1 November 2006 edit undoClintonesque (talk | contribs)113 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
| Remember the NPA attack policy, you have no reason to react hostilely to warning tags I have placed on the talk if you have actually violated the rules, furthermore additionally if you have not noticed you have made more than 3 reverts in a mere 24 hours, if I were so inclined I could have reported such to an administrator, my use of talckpage warnings was simply for good faith. Finaly I have removed you’re retaliatory warning on the grounds that I have come nowhere near braking the 3rr rule on any page remember false talk page accusations are tantamount to vandalism.] 03:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | Remember the NPA attack policy, you have no reason to react hostilely to warning tags I have placed on the talk if you have actually violated the rules, furthermore additionally if you have not noticed you have made more than 3 reverts in a mere 24 hours, if I were so inclined I could have reported such to an administrator, my use of talckpage warnings was simply for good faith. Finaly I have removed you’re retaliatory warning on the grounds that I have come nowhere near braking the 3rr rule on any page remember false talk page accusations are tantamount to vandalism.] 03:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == 3RR Warning == | |||
| Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR --> ] 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing warnings is vandalism == | |||
| Removing warnings from your user page is vandalism. Do it again and I will report you. This is your last warning. ] 04:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:35, 1 November 2006
|
Also, I believe it is against copyright to have copyrighted images (such as you have) on your user page. Happy to help though and if you have any questions feel free to ask me. --WillMak050389 03:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Al-qaim-1-.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Al-qaim-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
admin aid needed
user- 88.155.198.100 has removed several information sections apparently out of personal reasons he has ignored requests for talkpage usage and broken the 3RR rule. the majority of his removals have been under the casualty section of the Battle of Bint Jbeil. where he removes the more recent casualty counts provided by msn cnn ny times (as recent as aug-2) and replaced them with much older information from websites, and insists that the newer cnn sources are "BULLSHIT" with out giving details. as a inexperienced editor I need some sort of admin help with this. his frequent removals have brought aditions to the page down to a halt.--68.211.220.109 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#General
Flayer blocked
Due to your excellently reported 3RR violation report, I blocked Flayer for three days, effective from 04:47 UTC 6 August 2006. If he causes any more trouble after the block expires, let me know and I will issue lengthier blocks. Also, because you filed such a nice report, I officially declare that you are no longer a nOOb. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*Salutes* Thank You Sir.--Freepsbane 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Tactical Victory
What is your rationale for removing the "Israeli Tactical victory"? A tactical victory is defined as a "a success in battle without substantive or long-lasting gain." They were not beat back by Hezbollah and did gain territory on the battlefield, this isnt my opinion, its a fact. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- What is your explanation? ~Rangeley (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Don’t be so 2demesional
defense in depth tactics Hezbollah used for the battle all but preclude the use of territory as a barometer for victory. The fact is tactically neither force defeated the other and the attack itself seemed to stall. Hence the Stalemate aspect.Freepsbane 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) When dealing with Asymmetric warfare it is unwise to use the same judgment scale as with set-piece battles, something known in military science. In that senario for determining the tactical victor you use a combination of body counts and the effectiveness(Intactness) of both fighting forces by the end of the engagement.Freepsbane 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
At any rate I don't appreciate you coming here to snap at me. I merely reverted an edit that seemed to be misinformed. Let’s continue this discussion in the article's talk page rather than mine.Freepsbane 15:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank You
From what I've heard he converted the tachi from a cavalry sword into the modern katana by shortening it and moving the curvature from near the hilt (kushizori) to nearer the center of the blade (torizori). If you compare the pictures of a tachi and a katana, you'll find the curvature on a tachi is more pronounced. Dessydes 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You are completely correct in the above statement; besides converting the tachi design into the katana Masamune also perfected the tempering process.Freepsbane 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think I should edit the article or leave it to someone else? I hate starting edit wars. Once again, thanks. Dessydes 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi sorry about the delay in answering your query. As you pointed out the article is incomplete in its historical section and an edit that would remedy this would defiantly be appreciated. That said some people are sensitive to changes in articles, and while I doubt that any upgrade you perform on the article would lead to an editwar it may be best to post the proposed updates in the Discussion section of the article as a precaution. Thanks Freepsbane 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Will keep that in mind. I was going to write a section in my Wikidiaries in the meantime where I knew it wouldn't be tampered with, but someone deleted the documentary I recorded on my PVR. Btw I've not signed in, as my monobook tends to halt the site in IE, hope you don't mind. Again, thanks. Dessydes
Bint Jbeil
Please use the page's Talk page to expalin your edits. Isarig 23:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
forgive me for my tone, but you have used the talk page for nothing other than to than to asault other editor's character. unless if you will act difrently in that regard the use of talk is imposible. Freepsbane 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It is clear you have not bothered to read the Talk page (or to contribute to it). I have presented arguments in favor of my revision, which were supported by other editors. You are encourged to use Talk rather than blindly reverting. Isarig 23:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
blind reversions? I am not the editor that has just broken the 3rr rule. Freepsbane 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- You don't understand WP:3RR, newbie. is not a revert, but the addition of new information, complete with new source never before present on that page. there is not a "previous version" which has that edit. And yes, you are engaged in blind reverts - having revrted my edits twice without bothering to explain yourself on Talk.Isarig
You reverted the pre existing version of that page, the very same version you have reverted in the past. True there was aproximatly a day of space betwen the first revert you executed today, but is was still the revertion of data that has been contested and disputed nontheless. Freepsbane 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I changed an exiting version, but did not revert. Liek I said, you don't understand the concept of revert. That's ok, you're a newbie. There's a lot for you to learn. Isarig 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Youe edit to User:TheRanger
Regarding the following diff, I see no evidence that User:TheRanger is a sockpuppet of anyone. The notice was added and readded by new users and IPs, any reason you restored that template ? Equendil Talk 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Cerebral
- Could you give your opinion at ? Thanks. yandman 07:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted Material from 'First Battle of Fallujah'
I did not vadalize this article, I deleted bad information and citations that did not back up the claims they were cited to support. I have removed the material again and put my reasoning on the talk page. - Atfyfe 19:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Re"Hypocricy"
Please stop your hypocrtical POV pushing. You have inserted the words "Official allegations" in the 2003 Iraq War Info box, please do not describe my labeling of allegations that not all deaths are reported as "weasel words". Clintonesque 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The term official allegations is simply a technical term, the reasons provided for the war have at least informally shifted. That said please try to maintain Misplaced Pages:Civility accusing other editors of being hypocrites is hardly constructive, and remember that Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks is an enforced policy. thank you Freepsbane 11:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Furthermore the fact that deaths inevitably go unreported is fact of war, and with the current chaos it is well acknowledged that all bodies are not found right away.Freepsbane 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikilawyering and abuse of warnings
If you disagree with my edits, may I suggest you discuss them on Talk, rather than reverting them with false edit summaries which also violate WP:NPA. And if you wish to embark on a career as a wikilawyer, it would behoove you to at least familiarize yourself withthe policies you are invoking. WP:3RR refers to 4 reverts in 24 hours. Clintonesque 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember the NPA attack policy, you have no reason to react hostilely to warning tags I have placed on the talk if you have actually violated the rules, furthermore additionally if you have not noticed you have made more than 3 reverts in a mere 24 hours, if I were so inclined I could have reported such to an administrator, my use of talckpage warnings was simply for good faith. Finaly I have removed you’re retaliatory warning on the grounds that I have come nowhere near braking the 3rr rule on any page remember false talk page accusations are tantamount to vandalism.Freepsbane 03:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
3RR Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Fallujah. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Clintonesque 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Removing warnings is vandalism
Removing warnings from your user page is vandalism. Do it again and I will report you. This is your last warning. Clintonesque 04:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)