Islamist protests in Egypt must be considered for these reasons:

1- There are more than 1000 fatalities.

2- They are not only "protests", but also weapons, bombs ecc. are involved.

3- Egyptian Army is involved.

4- There are many similar pages included in "List of ongoing armed conflicts": for example Iraq insurgency, Post-civil war violence in Lybia, South Thailand insurgency and many other examples. In these examples, there are not so-called "wars", but there are violences committed with weapons, and armies and military groups are involved. Its the case of Egypt too. Its not rational to exclude it: Wikipedia is necessary to let remember, not to let forget.

For these reasons, I hope and I wait for you to correct your change; otherwise I should correct it instead of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SigmaK (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Battle of Grytviken, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template ((hangon)) to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.165.230.156 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Spyship.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bear Brook (Paskack Valley) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jons63 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Bear Brook (Paskack Valley). If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place ((hangon)) on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Jons63 (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bear Brook (Paskack Valley) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jons63 (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Caleb-cushing.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on F18viper50: i was that close, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template ((hangon)) to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Terrordamaged.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings XavierGreen. Talk:Operation_Enduring_Freedom#Why_is_the_pirate_flag_here.3F

I’m willing to stop removing that flag if there is a strong case not to remove it. Chwyatt (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one 'r' in category. Try Category:Naval battles involving Algeria! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth-Rate covered ships of 32-50 guns from 1746-1810, and Fourth-Rates overlapped, covering ships of 50-70. While there is evidence for both a title of frigate and ship-of-the-line in terms of the Leopard in 1807, I have to maintain its frigate status for a few reasons:

• 1) The general rule of thumb is to only classify ships of 64 guns or more as a ship-of-the-line.
• 2) A ship of 50 guns fits the definition of a Fourth-Rate, as it is within 32-50 guns.
• 3) Most, if not all, source material I have read generally terms the Leopard a frigate. For example, Injured Honor: The Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, the definitive book on the subject, classifies her a frigate. Guttridge and Smith in The Commodores refers to the Leopard as the same.
• 4) A simple search - http://www.google.com/search?q=frigate+leopard&hl=en&start=0&sa=N - turns up more relevant hits for the Leopard in question described as a frigate than a similar search for the Leopard as a ship-of-the-line. Auror (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have written that this was the first surface action of the U.S. navy in the 21st century. I can find no sources to support this statement and suspect it is incorrect. I seem to recall some action at the beginning of the Iraq War between the Navy and small Iraqi motorboats that would predate this. I can't find mention of that either. Do you have any source for the statement you wrote in that article? Rmhermen (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've accepted the United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation, and you are listed as one of the participants. Please feel free to comment and participate in the discussion on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Battle of Wanat, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BanyanTree 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Blackflag.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackflag.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the ((GFDL-self)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you are planning on expanding the three stubs about the so called Battle of San Juan numbers 1, 2 and 3 of 1898. Why don't you write one article detailing all three? I mean the three minor incidents occurred in the short span of three months. Another thing, I won't interfer with your article, however, I must warn you that you should not remove nor delete any content which has been added within Wikipedia policy from the "Puerto Rico Campaign" as you once did, doing so may be deemed as vandalism. Take care Tony the Marine (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Battle of Wanat worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TestEditBot (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because it resembled the edit of a vandal - a) it deleted information that was already there and previously unchallenged for some time b) there was no edit summary explaining why thie was happening and c) even though this was kind of significant information, there was no discussion on the talk page. This is usually the mark of a vandal.

Then went I went to your discussion page, the prior entry, too seemed to be a warning, confirming my original suspicions. Please, please fill out edit summaries so that other editors might have some idea of what you are up to. If the information has been there awhile and the edit summary really can't do it justice, something on the talk page might be in order. I think you explained it adequately in the second edit summary.

Incidentally, the bot had to sign the message you left for me! Four tildes, right? Student7 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating such stubs, please check out if that information can be inserted into existing articles, such as the Battle of Goma--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with image copyright. You have uploaded Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg claiming

• that the image was taken by the British ministry of Defence and was not under copyright; British documents are typically Crown copyright, not public domain
• stamped a "US-gov", which is incoherent with the stated source (the United Kingdom is not part of the United States of America). Rama (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XavierGreen. Can you provide a source for your recent addition to naval trawler? --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you provide a source? --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Action of 11 November 2008, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on November 13, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, BlueVine (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the article won't pass its DYK nomination, because it is being considered for deletion. Fingers crossed. In regards to me improving the article, you're welcome. If you need helping citing, take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. BlueVine (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Action of 11 November 2008, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 11 November 2008. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Concerning Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg, I see you noted at User talk:Hammersoft that "it is under crown copywright which allows the free use of images so long as they are not being sold for a profit". What does that mean exaclty, does it explicitly exclude commercial use of any kind of the image?
In any case, you might want to have a look at the WP:Non-free content guideline which is actually more strict than the US fair use law, and if you are convinced that the image qualifies you can use the ((Non-free use rationale)) template to formulate a free use rationale at Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg.
You probably should ask more specific questions at WT:Non-free content since my understanding of the gritty details of the fair use policy is limited.
Hope that helps, and Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BlueVine (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I reverted your move of Talk:2008 Nord-Kivu war. My primary thinking is that this is a large part of an ongoing conflict; it isn't a simple offensive. That's basically all of what I have to say though. You? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is much more than an offensive; we've been through two ceasefires and several major developments so far. Compare War on Terrorism and Iraq War; the Iraq War could be considered an "offensive" of the War on Terrorism, but yet it is a conflict on its own. This is part of the Kivu Conflict in the greater scheme of things, yes, but it is still a war. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reference this: [1]? I have not reverted this, but if it doesn't get referenced it might. Also, for future reference, ship names are italicized per the MOS here on wikipedia. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating the discussion involving the Flag icon of Puerto Rico. Now, I ask you to please participate in the following consensus. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may have missed it but the article Battle off Texel has been reviewed at GA and placed on hold. The seven day waiting period for work to continue on the article will begin today.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you didn't miss it, my error. Please notify me on the GA review page when you are ready for me to take another look.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey XaiverGreen, I just did a bit of editing on Battle of Sa'dah which you created a few days ago, and I was unable to locate the sources you used for some of the numbers in the article. Would you mind adding those in when you get the chance? Thanks. Joshdboz (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add it soon. Joshdboz (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yosemite1892.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Yosemite1892.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Yosemite1892.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hmsleonidas.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 06:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Last stand#Victorious Defences --PBS (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SSAntonioLopez.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Terrordamaged.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been spending the past few days, in fact, refining my maps, though to add the Alaska border dispute. I've been trying to figure out the best way to handle this. I think a separate map showing all of the arctic islands as they were claimed would be useful, as this version of the map doesn't have the resolution to handle all the islands. I'll find a way to mention the Sverdrup Islands, though. --Golbez (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for Territorial evolution of the United States I ignore the different secession and readmission dates, considering it all done in one block; the specific changes were addressed in a separate animated GIF of the CSA. So I thought I'd do a separate gif of the acquisition of the arctic islands, and just have them all 'part' of Canada in the main list, with notes at the start that point things out. Though, as you said, the Sverdrup Islands are kind of major, but I still think they can be 'ignored'. Not ignored, but you know what I mean. Norway didn't even claim control until it became convenient for them, so I wouldn't quite know when to mark them as Norwegian. --Golbez (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot finish the Battle of Imbros article by the end of the year I will fail it for completeness. Then you can get more sources and revise it at your leisure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be red linked in here if they were hoax?Starzynka (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it is completely pointless tagging them for hoaxes as the battles did take place. Obviously you know more about subject than I do so please correct the people who fought or whatever and help build the encyclopedia. Sorry, I thought you would be interested in them. Thanks. Starzynka (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's always interested me how users are happy to create a mess but expect others to clean it up, even berating them for not doing so. Have seen it time and time again in my 4 or so years here. A fellow editor of long standing once suggested to me that creating unnecessary work for others should be regarded as a breach of WP:CIVIL, and I tend to agree. Orderinchaos 14:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil? Or perhaps you should just WP:Assume good faith. Starzynka (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was always a caveat on AGF that one should assume so "unless there is clear evidence to the contrary". That evidence is building. Orderinchaos 02:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith when i saw the first article, but then when i saw around twelve more with the same exact text i AGFed no more.XavierGreen (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the twelve editors advancing into the second round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The second round started at 00:00, 29 December and ends 23:59, 31 January. The top six ranked players at the end of this stage will advance into the final round of the contest so keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your assessment, the article meets b5 as it has an infobox. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PapeeteDestroyed.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct; if you're going to cite magazines, biblio format please. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you did not finish the nomination by placing the proper template on the talk page of Bombardment of Papeete. You need to do this because the template automatically notates the person who places it as the nominator. This is what you need to add to the talk page: ((subst:GAN|subtopic=war and military)) Good luck! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You revert the move, citing the need to discuss changes, then don't even leave a comment on the talk page? Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You added "Triángulo Oeste" to List of Guano Island claims, with coords 20° 95′ N, 92° 23′ W. That can't be right, since minutes have to be in the range of 0 to 60. There's something or other at 20.95° N, 92.23° W; is that the location you meant?
—WWoods (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed it. —WWoods (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FINALIST

Congratulations on reaching the finals of the Henry Allingham World War I International Contest Thank you for your great performance and your valuable contributions to the project!

1st edition (11 November 2009 - 11 March 2010)

Eurocopter (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. DD2K (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed with you numerous time, and I know you find this interesting, but it's nothing more than an spurious attack ad by a political opponent and does not belong in factual material. It can be added in the Harding article, if editors there approve, or the article about the author of the attack book, but not in factual articles. It does not pass the WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE or WP:RS tests. DD2K (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You previously uploaded a map which is used on the article Battle of Bita Paka, however the source is a little unclear. I was hoping you might be able to include the title of the book on the image page if possible (so as to remove any future questions about it usability etc). Thanks in advance. ChoraPete (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy again. Please disregard as I have located the information myself. Cheers. ChoraPete (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't simply recreate deleted content. Instead, please add the necessary references and please format the article per the site's standards. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 March 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772), which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

I was given one for expansion, but you created the article in the first place, so you deserve this too! Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been another sea battle. Near the Seychelles. [2] --DAI (Δ) 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interesting. Although IMO we should divide pirate battles from OEF-HoA --DAI (Δ) 12:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in. New clash http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3870846,00.html --DAI (Δ) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bita Paka Map.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for your recent post at WW2 Casualties

2 U.S. Civilians were killed in the attack on Howland Island in 1941[citation needed],

Thanks,--Woogie10w (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will add source, thanks again--Woogie10w (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reviewed Action of 1 August 1801 and placed it on hold for seven days with several small concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Action of 1 August 1801/GA1. Canadian Paul 02:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know your opinion concerning a proposal I made, which I think represents a decent compromise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Action of 17 October 1914Sketch.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ActionoffTexel.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to indicate in detail how each of the Non Free Content Criteria WP:NFCC have been met. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Beirut battle.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the main contributer of the article Battle of Beirut (1912). Can you please see my note on the discussion page ? Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you GA nomination was evaluated by me and passed (see Talk:Action of 9 February 1799/GA1). Very nicely done! Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Action of 9 February 1799 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 12:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On May 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 9 February 1799, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the "Anti-piracy battles involving the United States Navy category" removed from the Barbary Wars battle pages? The Tripolitan Navy was nothing more than state-sponsored piracy, even on the Barbary Corsairs page it says they were pirates and privateers. --Az81964444 (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Gaza blockade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 386-DX (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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. Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Bombardment of Papeete, Action of 1 August 1801 and Action of 9 February 1799; promoted to A-Class between February and June 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. -MBK004 01:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for informing me. Bsimmons666 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that this didn't make it this time ... the reviewers seemed to be saying that it was close. Either you or I can leave a message with Nev1 and The_Land to get a better sense of what they're looking for. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has previously contributed to the discussion on merging Sovereign state and State (polity), I was wondering if you would like to comment on my counter proposal. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

On 17 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 9 November 1822, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. I've read the article that you created about the Third Battle of Manzanillo. It seems to be mainly based in American contemporary accounts. Unfortunately these accounts usually exaggerate the facts. About the battle, it was hardly a decisive victory, since the strenght of the Spanish force, much inferior than the American, didn't suppose a serious menace. The Spanish naval forces in Manzanillo was composed of 3 gunboats crewed each one by 19 men, Guantánamo, Estrella and Delgado Parejo, this one a former American yatch of 85 tons; and three pontoons: the yatch Guardián, whose crew consisted of 4 men, Cuba Española, armed barely with an old Parrott gun, and a quarter ship garrisoned by 39 men also armed with a Parrott. The land batteries had just three 8 or 9 mm pieces. When the American squadron attacked the port the Spanish commander Gómez de Barreda decided to drive his ships ashore and entrench his men around the beach to repell any attempt of landing. The Spanish casualties of the bombardment were far lesser than the 200 given by the article. They amounted to 2 soldiers killed and 5 soldiers and a boatswain wounded. ElBufon (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Rodríguez González states 2 Spanish killed and 6 wounded, plus a wounded civilian, in his La guerra del 98: las campañas de Cuba, Puerto Rico y Filipinas. In the Spanish source used by the Historical dictionary of the Spanish American War, the article of the Revista de Historia Naval, which is included in the book Victorias por mar de los españoles and is too a work by Rodríguez, also 2 killed and 6 wounded are given. In any case both figures are similar. Concerning to the order of battle, it is essentially the previously mentioned: three third-class gunboats, three pontoons and three shore-based guns. ElBufon (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purísima Concepción, Jose García and Gloria were merchant vessels property of the shipowner Antinógenes Ménendez, who was also owner of Guardián before cede it to the Spanish navy. Purísima Concepción was a blockade runner, the other two were old wooden paddle steamers. Centinela, according to Spanish accounts, was heavily damaged and driven ashore by its own crew after encounter the American squadron off Niquero on its sail to Manzanillo, but could be repaired and joined forces with the other ships on 2 July, so it was present during the third battle. It was a 30-ton steam yatch purchased in the United States and armed with two Maxim guns. Guardián, meanwhile, was disarmed to reinforce the remaning ships. The figure of 10 ships was therefore accurate, although it should be noted that they were all small or useless units. ElBufon (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A civilian was wounded. The Spanish commander was Teniente the navio de primera clase (equivalent to corvette captain) Joaquín Gómez de Barreda, although the pontoons were under direct command of Ramón Navarro. About the discrepincies, I should note that according to Spanish accounts seems that Gómez Barreda drove his gunboats ashore, salvaging their artillery and ammunitions, without trying to confront the American squadron. He claimed to "be satisfied of having prevented his crews from suffer an hecatomb". I'll continue investigating. ElBufon (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. You have new messages at Chipmunkdavis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Once more!

Hello, XavierGreen. You have new messages at Chipmunkdavis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hey Xavier, do you have a citation for SMS Loreley as being a member of the division? Right now the sentence you added her to cites Staff's German Battlecruisers 1914-1918, which makes no mention of the ship. Groner's German Warships 1815-1945 has an entry for the yacht, but only says that she was a station ship in Constantinople, but nothing about her being part of the division. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reference the inclusion of Lorely. There is an attempt to get this to an FT, so I was wondering if this article should be included. Buggie111 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant specifically her being a part of the division - I don't dispute that she was in Constantinople, but that doesn't necessarily mean she was assigned to the division. Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal.  Roger Davies talk 08:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a WP:RFM for List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to mediation there. TDL (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:German Torpedo Boat.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GermanSeventhHalfFlotilla.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majority concencus has been reached that the war is over you made the change based on this. However V7 again reverted you and I, in an attempt to find a compromise solution, reverted to your edit but added that Coalition combat operations concluded but Iraqi security forces operations continue. V7 has reverted again and now I feel there is no other way to go about this except report him for edit warring or take this to the arbiter with the evidence of the major concencus on the issue. V7 wan't proof that the war is still continuing, I told him to turn on his TV and watch about the deaths of those 60 people in the church yesterday, but it seems he doesn't regard that to be part of the US's war. I told him that this isn't just the Americans war but also the Iraqis. He disregarted that. Publicus also agrees with us.Diefgross (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reverted your last edit, the state department source stated that the "Iraq war is over". If you wish to revert it please find some source that supersedes the ones that I have listed From the pentagon, state department, president, etc. Thanks- V7-sport (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the United States's view of the war, the state department release says nothing of the Iraqi governments view of the war. You have yet to provide any evidence at all that states that the Iraqi government considers the war over. As Iraq is a soveriegn nation, in international law the United State's view on whether or not the war continues is utterly meaningless in regards to the position of the soveriegn Iraqi government.XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well since the USA was the last member of the coalition that invaded Iraq it is what is relevant to the topic. So by your logic you have yet to provide any evidence that all that states that the Iraqi government has declared war on itself. I don't want to sound snarky, sincerely, but that is the logical conclusion of what you are asserting. V7-sport (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm trying to get this all on 1 page, let me know if you don't want me to do this) "There are no declarations of war, if thats what your looking for then good luck to you. There have been no declared wars since 1945. If you want proof of combat, that i can provide. But if you are going to argue that i need to provide declarations of war to prove that Iraq is fighting, then you might as well argue that the Iraq war did not take place at all since none of the belligerents offically declared war. Undeclared wars have been fought since the dawn of humanity, there is no requirement among historians that a declaration be given in order for a conflict to be called a war.XavierGreen (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was the congressional declaration of war against the Saddam Hussein regime in iraq. If you can find something similar with the Iraqi government(and I doubt you can) declaring it's actions against the international terrorists within it's borders to be war then by all means include it. Otherwise, to declare the thing ongoing without citations is original research and synthesis. I'm not trying to be a jerk, that is just the fact though. V7-sport (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Ressolution of 2002 was not a declaration of war there is a signifigant legal difference between and authorization of use of force and a declaration of war. The Russian Civil War, the Mongol Invasions, and several of the other bloodiest wars in history had no declarations of war, a declaration is not nessesary for polities to begin hostilities against each other. Ants and Chimpanzees dont issue declarations of war before starting their wars. No polity issues statements regularly throughout a conflict that it is still ongoing, thats a rediculous and unreasonable thing to ask for. As ive stated before there are a myriad of new reports stating that the war is ongoing, and i would think that that is proof enough.XavierGreen (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Joint resolution of 2002 was a defacto and dejure decoration of war. Where are these myriad of reports that supersede the president, state department and pentagon?V7-sport (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to US law a resolution of force and a declaration of war are not the same thing, see 1 for a congressional research report on the issue. The united states has not fought a declared war since the end of world war 2. Globalsecurity.org lists the Iraq war on its list of active conflicts, icasualties.com continues to have an active listing for the iraq war. Both are highly notable and respected sources heavily cited in wikipedia.XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the Supreme court which affirmed the Constitutional legality (IE only congress can declare war) in Doe V Bush which stated that congress had given the president the right to "declare war" with the Joint resolution of 2002. Globalsecurity.org does not trump the state department, the president or the pentagon in terms of WP:Weight, indeed, it is arguably not a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a point by point rundown of the situation we are in at the talk page and I strongly belive that this issue can be resolved easily with the concensus of the majority of editors (which there is), however V7 has continued to disrupt both the article and attempts at trying to find a solution (he has not tryied to find a solution and rejected all propositions). He has continued to push his point of view and his view that if the US says it's part in the war is over and thus the war as a whole is over is both Original research and Synthesis not to mention POV-pushing. So i belive that the only way to resolve this issue is to report him to an Administrator. Or if not report him than form an Arbitary commity that will make a rulling on if the war is over or not. I am not well versed in the procedure here on Wikipedia so I think an editor who is should do this.Diefgross (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I'll look into it. I think the "engagements" is important because many people consider a "naval battle" to have been fought between warships with no exception. I wouldn't agree necessarily but some people are very firm about this.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Korean War ended in an armistice in 1953 rather than a peace treaty and so technically the war was not formally concluded (but how many are these days?), it is stretching reality to claim that the war is still going on and that all subsequent incidents including the Korean DMZ Conflict are part of the Korean War. The Korean War was an event that occurred from 1950 to 1953, it muddies history to categorise all subsequent NK-SK conflicts and incidents as part of a 60 year old war.Mztourist (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean War ended with an armistice. Most modern wars don't even end that clearly and they certainly don't all end with a peace treaty or complete destruction - did the Yom Kippur War end with a peace treaty with Syria or Syria's complete destruction? Do you think that war is ongoing? Or what about the Gulf War? Only a ceasefire there. How about the 2006 Lebanon War? If you talk about the Korean War people think of the events from 1950-1953. No-one in Korea thinks the war is ongoing, it was something that happened in their parents' or grandparents' generation. I can see from some of your earlier discussions that you take a particular view of when conflicts start and end, but I think you need to accept that warfare has changed since WWII, wars are seldom declared and they seldom end with legal formality or total destruction. The Korean War ended on 27 July 1953.Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Heads of State has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Kevin Myers 05:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Shelling of Yeonpyeong, which you created and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Kslotte (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xavier, can you take a second look at this FLC when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hmsleonidas.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier, if you have anything more to add to the discussion of whether or not the Korean War has ended please provide your input on the talk page. I had assumed your recent silence to be agreement that the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong was not part of the Korean War. regards Mztourist (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, origionally the sources I had said that there were only five American casualties in the battle but later I found the Captain William Stafford reported that the five men wounded were aboard his ship and that the other three vessels sustained a combined loss of six killed and five more wounded. Glad to see you have a sharp eye, thanks.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raid on Ojo de Agua, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that on October 21, 1915, a band of Mexicans invaded the United States and conducted a raid on Ojo de Agua in Texas as part of the Plan de San Diego? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:BRD. We need WP:RS for the info you want to include. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down. I did provide discussion but I suspect WP:OWN took over before I had a chance to complete the remark. Also, simply because an editor changes one section of an article without changing other sections does not change the validity of the edit. Such an argument is akin to a "So's your old man!" retort. --S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xavier, I'm wondering about one of Rumiton's edits at the link ... if we've got it wrong, please let us know. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 January 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Operation Dawn of Gulf of Aden, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xavier, I think that I've now addressed your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands to the extent possible. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't help with the problems Kirk is mentioning at FAC, and the article has been at FAC long enough that the problems probably need to be dealt with quickly. I recommend you talk with Kirk on the FAC page and see if you can fix the problems, and if that doesn't work, please don't hesitate to ask at WT:MILHIST for help. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the ((Autopatrolled)) top icon and/or the ((User wikipedia/autopatrolled)) userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initial MEDCAB mediator got busy and a second mediator is willing to take the case, but we need to re-state our acceptance/decline. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation or not. Please, even if you don't expect to participate (because of lack of time or other reason) - state your acceptance/non-acceptance of the mediation process - so that we don't have to wait for unaccounted for users. Thanks. Alinor (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please let me know your intentions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente/archive1. Nominations require active involvement—if you do not anticipate having time to address comments, please let me know to withdraw the nomination and you can bring it back some other time. Thanks --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir. I was starting to sound alarms because I didn't want to just archive it! --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xavier. I've started the GA review for the Battle of Dover Strait (1916) article. The link is here: Talk:Battle of Dover Strait (1916)/GA1. If you could please take a look and respond when you get a chance, that would be great. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of 1999 AO10 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am happy with how the article came out too. I had not heard anything about that particular expedition until only recently. There are so many different subjects when it comes to navy history and I have just now taken a more serious look at UK and US ops in Africa back then. I just got lucky when I typed "bombardment of Johanna" into the google engine and found a NY Times article with the exact title and a specific account from an eye witness.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did you wrote something about Steven Roberts section? I don't see you write anything about it. 130.65.109.34 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for reviewing GJ 3634. I've done my best to address your comments at the review page. Could you take another look? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment has been addressed. Thanks for the catch. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 21:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. You have new messages at Talk:Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Message added 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

BTW, its spelt as RIDICULOUS. TBH, do you wear glasses? Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strange... why are you so quiet now? Come on, just come over to that page and provide us with some of your comments on this edit of yours, I'm very puzzled. Anyway, I promise I will AGF and I won't laugh at you. Gentlemen's honour. So what say you? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sms goeben beached.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads, and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media Copyright Questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	A new Good Article
	Thanks for all the work you did in making USS Constellation vs La Vengeance a certified "Good Article"! Your work is appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xavier, there are still two comments outstanding on this review (noted in this edit). Could you please respond to them? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Action off Lofoten a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. (Pictured: off Lofoten, modern day.) All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Category:Earth Trojans, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. You have new messages at WT:MIL.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

- Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. You have new messages at Talk:2011 Battle of Tripoli.
Message added 00:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Cerejota (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		Battle of Tripoli (1825), and making the rules, this time, actually improve the encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that FAC ... I'm just dropping by to say it's "FAC" ... you'll confuse people if you say you've got an article at WP:FAR. Best of luck, the FAC is looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, I finally got that RfC done. It's at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Nightw 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last one's up! Nightw 12:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Tripoli (1825), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Battle of Tripoli in 1825 was the result of the Sardinian consul's failure to provide Yusuf Karamanli, the ruler of Tripoli, with tribute? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Tripoli (1825).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making USS Constellation vs La Vengeance a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Montior HMS M28.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Saibo (Δ) 21:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you notice the review I posted at Talk:Battle of Tripoli (1825)/GA1? Ucucha (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xavier. I had moved the articles to an undisambiguated title because there are no articles for the earlier ships, and there would only be two ships with each name. A hatnote will be sufficient (see for instance SMS Friedrich Carl) and is in line with established disambiguation policy. Parsecboy (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help you added a first name of "Hermann" to major Ritter to the article Battle of Otavi (your creation :-) ) and I presume from the comment when you did you found a source, please see Talk:South-West Africa Campaign#Hermann Ritter -- PBS (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interested in having your input here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've seen fit to move Capture of Grenada, you're going to fix the links in campaignboxes and elsewhere (and create Capture of Grenada (disambiguation) and Capture of Grenada (1983), right? Magic♪piano 20:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for taking a look. It's been on the back-burner for a while since I have been doing other things and there was another source I wished to read. However there's no real reason it has been languishing in my userspace. I'll see if I can get around to writing a lead for it (and for the related Zaian War article) and moving it to mainspace in the next day or so. Thanks for giving me the impetus - Dumelow (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you return Action of 12 January 2012 to January 2012 United States Navy SEAL Somali raid and propose the move on the talk page, this needs to be discussed. Mtking ^(edits) 01:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry your choice of name is both wrong and less descriptive, please revert it to where it was then make your case at the talk page. Mtking ^(edits) 01:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a related discussion before. The current one is here. Japinderum (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is related to the recent AfD you participated at. Japinderum (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rumor" has it that you know of a few listings missing at [[3]]..Have you emailed them the missing ones (with any sources)?? If not, post them here or on my page or somewhere and I can pass them along to them. Sounds interesting. Thanks. DLinth (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THIS[ is flagrant pov and NOT what the source says. It explicitly says in the first passage the airdrop was to support state troops NOT civilians udner siege.Lihaas (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is the THIRD time youve added and that means the onus is on you to get consensus. As explained if they joined the mlna they are now on the side of the mlna with the added forces. NOTHI\NG is saying they are a seperate belligerentLihaas (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 East DR Congo conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bunagana (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) 12:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this WikiProject.--JayJasper (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain to me how bringing an article inline with policy is vandalism? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your claim that Hezbollah has no copyright authority, please see the prior discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_15#File:Hezbollah_Flag.jpg . In the meantime absent evidence supporting your assertion, any such use of the image remains a violation of our non-free content policy. Continuing to knowingly violate it can be viewed as disruptive behaviour and you may be blocked from editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Action of 1 January 1800 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 1, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 1, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Action of 1 January 1800 was a naval battle of the Quasi-War that took place off the coast of present-day Haiti, near the island of Gonâve in the Bight of Léogâne. The battle was fought between an American convoy consisting of four merchant vessels escorted by the United States naval schooner USS Experiment, and a squadron of armed barges manned by piratical Haitians known as picaroons. A French-aligned Haitian general, André Rigaud (pictured), had instructed his forces to attack all foreign shipping within their range of operations. Accordingly, once Experiment and her convoy of merchant ships neared Gonâve and were caught in a dead calm, the picaroons attacked them, capturing two of the American merchant ships before withdrawing. Experiment managed to save the other two ships in her convoy, and escorted them to a friendly port. On the American side, only the captain of the schooner Mary was killed. The picaroons took heavy losses during this engagement, but remained strong enough to continue wreaking havoc among American shipping in the region. Only after Rigaud was forced out of power by the forces of Toussaint L'Ouverture, leader of the 1791 Haitian Revolution, did the picaroon attacks cease. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naval warfare
Thank you for quality articles on naval warfare, such as Action of 1 January 1800 and USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente, and for devoted review work, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 352ndth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 352 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente, "which also happens to be the first naval battle in the history of the United States Navy". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your correction efforts on the article Hyderabad, India and to make it to move forward for FAC, The current status of the article Operation Polo we see now is not written in academic standards.

The Indian army official web site mentions:

Though termed a "Police Action", the Army played a stellar role in quelling internal strife in the State and restoring law and order.

Armored Division, commanded by Major General JN Chaudhuri (who later rose to become India’s Army Chief), was one of the few formations available apart from some infantry units which were attached to the division. This force soon entered the State from different cardinal directions and, under the banner of "Operation Polo", settled matters amicably using minimal force.

As defined by Lucien D. Benichou who wrote a complete senario of Operation polo in his book From Autocracy to integration. It copy "General El Edros" (the chief of Nizam army), says India can walk into whenever she want to (page - 229), there are many more references which supports that the Nizams army hardly showed any resistance.

Thus concerning this all specification from the official web site of Indian army; under the banner of "Operation Polo", settled matters amicably using minimal force and the Army played a stellar role, and by Lucien D. Benichou the speech of General el Edros (above), this all specifies that the (Indian Army) did not receive any hard resistance from Nizams Army, (was briefed in my this edit).

Any way, dear : Xavier Green regarding (your this edit) as you are aware that the article Hyderabad, India is about a city, To maintain average size and neutrality on the article we had discussed in few and concluding words the issues of Operation Polo, the Accession of Qutb shahi sultans (which actually is the more destructive and violent) and the Telengana Rebellion. Frequently to specify in details and to avoid provoking the edit wars we had wiki-linked Operation polo, History of Hyderabad, India and Hyderabad State (1948—1956) this all we did with consensus on talk page with lot of efforts and discussions. Hope you will promote to maintain the average size and neutrality of the article. Regards and thanks once again :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian military's views of the conflict are severely bias towards the issue, they generally tend to play down the fact that the Nizam wanted nothing to do with the Indian Union at all and that he had to be compelled through the military destruction of his state in order to sign a treaty of ascension. I have read most of Benichou's book, and while it does a fairly decent treatment of the political circumstances of the events, it barely touches on the events of the military invasion at all. To suggest that the Nizam was amicable to his state's incorporation into India is an utter falsity and it leads me to believe that you are either severely biased towards the issue or have not fully researched it to the point necessary. The information is certainty relevant to this article, as Hyderabad City was the capital of a state that lasted for hundreds of years and that states destruction is certainty a notable event in the history of the city.XavierGreen (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page visitor) Hi XavierGreen. You may be right (I am a copy editor, not a subject expert). But the article as written doesn't imply that the Nizam was amicable to it, so that POV question surely doesn't arise. For the rest, we should avoid hyperbole. The fact that is was an invasion makes it clear already that there was violence, so it should not be necessary to add that word. As to whether he was forced, well, he probably was, but that is also clear already from the fact that he was defeated by an invasion. I agree with you that we should not say he was "amicable" to it. In my view, it's best just to state factually what he did, and not say or imply anything about his degree of willingness or unwillingness. That way, we avoid POV issues. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of Tibet in the 1950s is a contentious issue on Wikipedia, and there have been many major edit wars in the past. Prior to making controversial edits, please discuss on the talk page, or on relevant WikiProjects. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debellation is the term used to refer to the complete destruction of a state, the Lamaist Tibeten state was destroyed by the chinese as a direct result of their invasion. That fact is not controversial anywhere. Show me where an independent Soveriegn Lamaist controlled Tibet is on a map, you can't because it no longer exists.XavierGreen (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Debellatio: "The term Debellatio designates the end of a war caused by complete destruction of a hostile state." Explain to me how the Tibetan state was "completely destroyed" by a hostile state. I'm suspecting whether you've actually looked into the history behind Tibet, or if you're merely making edits on a whim. The PLA attacked Tibet during the Battle of Chamdo, and as a result of the swift and overwhelming defeat by the Tibetan Army by the PLA forces (they were using outdated weaponry and were heavily outnumbered), the Dalai Lama and his cabinet intended to minimise as much damage and death as possible, and so signed the Seventeen Point Agreement with the Communist Party of China, which agreed that the Dalai Lama and his government remained in power in Tibet, and in return they accept full sovereignty of the People's Republic of China over Tibet. After Tibet was fully incorporated into Tibet, the Communist Party began a series of controversial land reforms and other policies which became unpopular with the Tibetan locals, and in 1959 an uprising occurred. The Dalai Lama supported this uprising, however it was unsuccessful and he was forced to flee to India. The local Tibetan government was abolished, and the central government in Beijing assumed full direct control over Tibet.

Now, compare this with the definition of Debellatio, which is more used to refer to events such as the fall of Nazi Germany (Soviet capture of Berlin), fall of Indian princely states to the British Raj, or the fall of Saddam's Iraq in 2003. Is this really a debellatio? Was the state completely eradicated by an attacking state? Usage of such wording violates WP:NPOV, as it implies that the entire nation of Tibet was completely and utterly destroyed by the PLA, and completely ignores the intricate details of the Tibetan situation. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your correct in regards to the 1959 uprising, i had forgotten that the Tibeten government had still existed under chinese control until the rebellion. As such the Debellation occurred after the rebellion as opposed to the initial invasion, when the residual sovereignty of the Tibetan State was utterly destroyed by the Chinese.XavierGreen (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your contributions to the article!

I'm not so sure about the inclusion of the Congo Crisis. The article is intended to be about wars that have involved India in an official, national capacity, while in the Congo Crisis, I'm assuming India intervened as part of the UN peacekeepers? Furthermore, India is completely absent from the Congo Crisis page itself.

Cataloguing India's contibutions via UN Peacekeeping would be worthwhile, however. I think if included, it should be made clear that India was a part of the UN Peacekeeping Force and not fighting as an independent entity in the conflict (in the present iteration of the page, India is depicted independent of ONUC).

Thanks! Sabre (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i know its absent from the page about the conflict, but if you read up on the subject you'll see that the Indians took a lead roll in defeating Katanga militarily. They provided the largest number of troops out of any nation in ONUC, (16,000) and took part in heavy fighting against the Katangese. The ONUC operation in Katanga although labeled a peacekeeping mission was nothing of the sort, rather than stay on the sidelines and protect civilians, ONUC launched major conventional attacks against Katanga and sought to defeat it outright. [[4]]XavierGreen (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important as the role was, the Republic of India as a political entity did not participate in the conflict - only the troops of the Indian Army did. Furthermore, in your entry on the page, the ONUC is listed as an independent ally of India, which is incorrect, because, as I said, India did not enter the conflict as a national entity, but part of the ONUC. The Indian troops on ground answered to the ONUC, not the Indian defence authorities. This list only concerns the wars undertaken by the Republic of India as an entity, with any official allies (for eg. in the entry for the war against Somalian pirates, although other countries are also fighting piracy in the area, India is acting independently, and so, no allies are listed). Sabre (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These pages typically include wars where the nation in question was part of a international organization. For example it would be ludicris to exclude the Korean War (fighting under a UN mandate) from various countries pages, or to exclude the Somali Civil War from Kenya and Ethiopia's (fighting under an AU mandate) pages or the Afghan War from Germany's page (German troops are under NATO command). The soldiers on the ground ultimately answer to their soveriegn nation, the UN may tell them to do this or that but when it comes down to it the final authority over a nations own troops is the nation itself. By your logic one would have to exclude the Second World War from Australia's page because Australian troops were subordinate to the United States.XavierGreen (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2012, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Your recent editing history at List of states with limited recognition shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. TDL (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. TDL (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Sultanate of Sulu. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)) below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated the 3R rule, editing a page does not constitute reverting. While i edited the page more than 4 times, i did not revert specific material more than 3 times. Your attitude and abuse of the policy is most ungentlemanly and certaintly abusive of it.XavierGreen (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XavierGreen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While i edited the page four times, i did not revert more times than the page allows.

Decline reason:

You need not violate 3RR to be blocked for edit warring, but I do count 1 2 3 4 reverts. An edit counts as a revert if it has the effect of undoing someone's edit, it doesn't have to be done by clicking the "undo" button. Your comments below do not convince me that you would stop edit warring if unblocked early. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

I also note that i am actively engaged in a discussion involving the topic related to this, and that the person who requested me blocked also requested me to provide sources for my arguments. The block of course prevents me from editing the talk page and providing the sources requested, which is most injust indeed!.XavierGreen (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one such source, which states that under treaty with the Philippines, the Sultanate has may reassert its soveriegn claim to Sabah independently if the Philippines fails to assert the claim or abandons it. [[5]]XavierGreen (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a Veteran Editor and is entitled to display this Iron Editor Star.

Aye, XavierGreen, I saw your user name on the USA 'List of states with limited recognition' talk page. Just wanted to say howdy to a fellow naval history buff. My favorite area is early American naval history. After years of collecting and using sources I put together the Bibliography of early American naval history to help naval historians write and cite good naval history articles. Thought you might want to scope it out. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've reverted my redirect of South African Republic (1914–1915) to Maritz Rebellion, I'd appreciate a response to my comment on Talk:South African Republic (1914–1915). By the way, when you revert an edit that is not vandalism, it's generally expected that you change the default edit summary ("Undid revision 543415324..."). - htonl (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. You have new messages at Howicus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Howicus (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shark_Island_Extermination_Camp#Requested_move_2. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:SSAntonioLopez.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Lofotencapitalships.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 18:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:KoreaPirates.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 18:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:DamagedDrifter.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:HMSNubian.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Nubian.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 18:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:WalkureSunk.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 18:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:ExperimentVrsPicaroons.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 18:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:ActionoffTexel.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 18:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PiratesSurrender.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. damiens.rf 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. You have new messages at Damiens.rf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, XavierGreen. You have new messages at Damiens.rf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks for uploading File:PiratesSurrender.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted an editor who converted Republic of Crimea (country) into a redirect. I don't doubt your good faith in doing so, but you are mistaken that it requires an admin to implement this kind of change. Technically, it didn't even require an admin to close the discussion, although it is usually wise to have one (or a similarly experienced editor) in cases like this. Moving/merging/splitting are editing functions and do not require admin tools most of the time. In cases where we need to move over an existing article, the tools are handy, but those are technical things. The actual content is decided by editors, not admin. We admins aren't supereditors or arbiters of content, we are just editors with extra tools and typically a bit more experience, nothing more. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the case, than since there was no consensus to merge the pages the page should not have been merged in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems your arguments and opinion at the main articles talk page could also be well placed here as well Template talk:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine over the current argument that I'm having with RGloucester. EkoGraf (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having a really tough time with him but he is un-compromising so I though your view point on the situation about Odessa in the box would be a good respite. EkoGraf (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about belligerents order for WWII in the talk page [6] which challenge previous consensus. Based on this discussion, some editors changed the Template:WW2InfoBox. Current change for WWII is ranking USA above United Kingdom, ranking France above China and adding the leaders of Romania and Hungary into Info box.

You need a citation to back your POV on dates for Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. If you can find a citation for your POV on dates, it goes in. If you cannot find a citation, it does not!.

Please do not mess up the date formats. Half of them were in the wrong format for the article, so I fixed it. Your reverting this was unhelpful.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts&diff=615889944&oldid=615880611

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts&diff=616193573&oldid=616182089

He keeps on removing the Moro conflict even though MNLF (Misuari faction) BIFF, and Abu Sayyaf are continuing to fight the Philippine government. Time to report him?Rajmaan (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC) \[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Revolutionary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sir Henry Clinton. 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) 12:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately ignoring the results of a lengthy RfC as you did here is a pretty serious form of edit warring. Please don't repeat this - if you think that this should be changed, please start a new discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ignoring them, i am not edit warring against the RFC. Finland was not a member of the axis, any attempt to lump it in with that alliance is un-historial and creates an anti-finnish bias.XavierGreen (talk)

I have reported your continued edit warring at WP:AN3 Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned per the outcome of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:XavierGreen reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Warned). Any change in the wording of the template regarding Finland needs to be approved by a talk page consensus before you make it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Islamist insurgency in Nigeria is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamist insurgency in Nigeria 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. zzz (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you weigh in here.[7] Thanks. -- GreenC 18:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Battle of Kumanovo"? Please if you can't make you're case STOP changing the name. Otherwise I'm going to have to report you. This is a very serious and fragile issue. Please refrain from tempering.- Phill24th (talk). 22:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at [[:2014 Skopje government attack; 2015 Kumanovo shootings; Goshince attack]]. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'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. This is Wikipedia. You can't make up your own wars. - Phill24th (talk). 23:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2015 Kumanovo shootings. - Phill24th (talk). 04:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of ongoing armed conflicts page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be our resident expert so I wanted to check with you, and here instead of the talk page since that place is a bit crowded:

• I found a source that says Vostok Island and Flint Island were claimed by the UK in 1873 and 1881, respectively, by John T. Arundel. Would you happen to know any way I could find the exact date? (I also asked this on WP:RDH)
• The U.S. called Butaritari "Makin Island"... but do you know if Makin Island was also claimed?

Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the relevant database i would need to look up Vostok and Flint at the moment. But if Makin was not included in the circular of bonded guano islands or the 1939 diplomatic note, than it was never officially claimed by the United States.XavierGreen (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the thing, it's hard to tell. Makin is near Butaritari. So when they claimed "Makin Island" they meant Butaritari. But perhaps "Mackin Island" meant Makin Island? I'm going to be bold and include both for now. And what database would that be that has such wonderful info? --Golbez (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have usually have access to a legal database that has every issue of DUSPIL in it. I remember seeing something in the 1941 issue that describes the history behind british claims to the various contested pacific islands. Also Arundel worked for Houlder Bros co in the 1870's and was their agent in the pacific during that time before he started his own company early in the 1880's. I know Alfred Houlder was given a lease by the UK on 9 June 1871 for Christmas Island and two other nearby islands. I believe Flint was one of these islands, as from what i can see of this source [[8]] it states that the Houlders assumed a lease over Christmas, Flint, and Starbuck. This source [[9]] states that the Houlder lease was assumed from one one previously granted to a Dr. Crowther. Other sources i have read state that the Houlder's held a lease on Caroline as well.XavierGreen (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, wait, I misunderstood Makin. There is an island named Butaritari that was bonded as Makin; the other "Makin" island doesn't show up at all, and probably would be considered subordinate to Butaritari in bonding. So. No further confusion other than that Butaritari was never ceded. --Golbez (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Member states of the African Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish North Africa. 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) 09:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to the article's talk page. There was absolutely no consensus to restore the incorrect infobox. If you have a problem with this, continue the discussion long since instated on the talk page of the article according to policies and guidelines. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my edit notes, its quite clear i had already read the talk page. There was no concensus there to change it in the first place. The discussion on the talk page did not reach one.XavierGreen (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Luhansk People's Republic. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

There is consensus for the use of "war faction" per the WP:BOLD introduction of the infobox by an editor, followed by policy and guideline-based arguments for its use (and the fact that it should have been used from the inception of the article). Other editors have agreed that there was actually no justification for having used the "geopolitical organization" infobox at any stage. That IS consensus. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus, you are edit warring. That is entirely clear from the Donetsk People's Republic talk page, where other editors clearly objected to the changes you advocate and pointed out to you that there was no concensus. Since the conversation regarding the relevant dispute arose there, i have left my remarks there.XavierGreen (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:XavierGreen reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: ). Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring the Luhansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic's article content. In the first instance, discussions as to the treatment of the infoboxes for both articles has been discussed at length on the DPR's talk page. The question of whether the infoboxes are subject to a 'consensus' !vote has specifically dealt with. So far, there has been no indication that this is a consensus matter, but that of WP:RS not supporting any such contention (i.e., that policy trumps consensus). Secondly, even if it were a matter of consensus, there is no consensus for changing the infobox to 'geopolitical organization'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Donetsk People's Republic. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

And here we are again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Donetsk People's Republic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

BethNaught (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now edit warring with multiple accounts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you referring to? This the only account i use.XavierGreen (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: At most, I'd say it's MEAT from the land of tin soldiers. XavierGreen's a different story. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding our discussion of LTEs, I still have slight confusion. Let me see if I can state my understanding accurately:

If a LTE cannot be claimed as emergent land within a territorial sea, but rather is simply a part of the territorial sea, then, logically and to be consistent, a LTE can not be a land mass.

To turn that around, suppose that Nunez Rocks are indeed viewed by the U.S. as a land mass. Then by the U.S.'s own stated interpretation of the 1903 U.S-Britain treaty on the Alaska boundary, that land mass would belong to Canada.

However, countering this supposition is this: The U.S. viewing Nunez Rocks as a land mass is necessarily not the case because the U.S. has used Nunez Rocks as a basepoint for a territorial sea claim.

Question: is my use of the word "necessarily" in the previous sentence accurate? Jeff in CA (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply! Jeff in CA (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canton and Enderbury Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull Island. 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) 10:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of ongoing political conflicts. Since you had some involvement with the List of ongoing political conflicts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you actively contribute to the discussion on the relevant talk page instead of making personal attacks here, maybe because you don't actually have anything constructive to say, aye?.XavierGreen (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed to the discussion. And what are these "personal attacks here" that you are referring to? Notifying a user they're subject of a discussion at WP:3RR/AN is required. Please keep in mind that accusing others of making personal attacks without basis is itself a personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not made a single remark as of the time of this posting on the DPR talk page regarding the quality of relevance off the sources at issue here.XavierGreen (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. And what are these personal attacks were you accusing me off? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not made any such remark regarding the sources. Show me the diffs (hint: you can't because they don't exist or you would have done it already).XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier, look at VolunteerMarek's history. He arbitrarily reverts edits if he doesn't like them. The sources and legitimacy doesn't matter. His edits and "contributions" to Wikipedia are poor at best. He set you up for edit warring with the intention of reporting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbacon143 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your probably right. Its also interesting to note that VolunteerMarek and User:My very best wishes were the subject of a tag-teaming complaint at arbitration a few months ago [[10]]. If you look through the block log of both of those accounts and the related cases, each of them support each other regardless of whether or not the other was actually involved in the matter that led to the dispute.XavierGreen (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Donetsk People's Republic. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XavierGreen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I acted in good faith in an attempt to enforce the result of an RFC at Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic. The editor who closed the RFC specifcally stated that the country type infobox should be used and the the article should not be changed to reflect one point of view or another. There is a concerted effort by various editors with a pro-ukrainian point of view to circumvent the RFC and inject a pro-ukrainian view into the infobox of that page in direct violation of the RFC result. I had put sourcing tags on the article to help facilitate discussion on the talk page, while editors including user:Volunteer Marek repeated deleted the tags in question. When i asked repeatedly user:Volunteer Marek to participate in the discussion on the talk page and explain his reasons, he refused and continued to edit war. I feel that the other editors involved are cooperating in an effort to shut out opposition to their viewpoint and circumvent the RFC.

Decline reason:

Perhaps, but you still don't get to edit war; this is exactly why the three revert rule exists. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

On 22 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S/2015 (136472) 1, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that S/2015 (136472) 1 is the only known moon of the dwarf planet Makemake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S/2015 (136472) 1. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Target for Today, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marienburg. 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) 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you found my secret! :) Thanks for the help. The US was uniquely "simple" due to the amazing abundance of research and, importantly, laws available online. Other English-speaking countries might have the laws available but probably less research, and then we get to the quagmire of non-English speaking countries. I thought the Soviet Union would be a good test because it was a very important country that English-speaking countries paid very close attention to. And also, it is generally less complex - only existed for 73 years, only 16 republics at its largest, and it'd be interesting to have an end date on one of these. So I thought it'd be a nice project to try out the new format for the territorial evolution page. Of course, the early 90s and mid-40s are slightly... chaotic. But I think I'll do right by them.

So yeah, if you have ANY input at all, please let me know, this is going to be one where I can't possibly find everything on my own. Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moons of Makemake, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. MartinZ02 (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please see my response on a talk page discussion where you have been involved. JustBeCool (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at List of sovereign states. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XavierGreen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I reported another user here [[11]] for violating 3RR on the list of sovereign states page. The editor I reported was ignoring the talk page and edit warring without regard to what consensus had been reached on the talk page. I acted in good faith, contributing to the discussion on the talk page, and leaving messages on the user's talk page that suggested that he contribute to the discussion on the talk page instead of edit war. The user did not attempt to follow the dispute resolution process until I reported him for 3RR, at which time he acknowledged that there was no consensus to make his edits by self reverting his edits and by leaving comments on the page in questions talk page. This morning I awoke to discover that an administrator had blocked me for 1 week without providing any explanation whatsoever as to why I had been blocked, the same administrator gave the user I reported only a warning. Given that I was acting in good faith and attempted to use the dispute resolution process, why am I being punished with a one week block while the other editor who blatantly ignored the process until he was reported was only given a warning?XavierGreen (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been blocked for edit warring twice before; edit warring blocks tend to escalate, as the need for repeated blocks indicates the editor has not gotten the point yet about the cost of edit warring. The other editor had never been blocked before, and a warning was deemed to suffice. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor blatantly defied the dispute resolution process, and I used it to try to resolve the dispute. Why am I being punished for using the dispute resolution process rather than edit warring? Is this something I can expect every time I use the dispute resolution process? Will I be blocked from now on every time I report an editor for edit warring against consensus? It doesn't appear to me that the user who blocked me actually looked into the dispute at all, his remarks on the 3RR report resolution statement seemed to allege that I was the one acting against concensus, when if you review the talk page of the list of sovereign states you will clearly see that I was merely attempting to enforce the results of that discussion.XavierGreen (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello XavierGreen. In the closure of the report, User:Coffee blocked you but issued a warning to the other party. You did indeed break WP:3RR with four reverts on August 7 and 8, and this is the third time you have been blocked for edit warring per WP:AN3 in 2016. User:Hebel made four reverts but then undid the last one. People are sometimes excused from a block if they self-revert. If you want to be unblocked, you should explain what you will do differently in the future so that the problem will not recur. Your repeated appearances at AN3 suggest that there is an ongoing pattern that needs to be changed. Thinking you are working in good faith or "enforcing the results of a discussion" are not among the exceptions listed at WP:3RRNO. You are responsible for your own reverts regardless of your good intentions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I think something that I can do in the future prevent myself from violating 3RR, would be to change my process of action when I encounter disputes of this nature. It seems to me that in past instances I tend to use a users talk page in an attempt to facilitate discussion only after I have reverted several times. In the future I will endeavor to notify users of ongoing discussions or in the absence of such discussions first rather than resorting to multiple reverts. I also will note that the prior incident which you mention occurred three years ago, and that I have been making efforts to use the dispute resolution process more. I have been involved in various lengthy discussions of disputes between editors at numerous pages which did not involve violations of the 3RR rule, such as the discussion to rename the page of the Russo-Georgian War, discussions involving the end date of the Iraq War, discussions regarding the name of the Battle of Tripoli (2011) article, the WWII infobox, and several prior discussions at the list of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition. It appears to me that in the instance at hand and the prior one, my 3RR violations were the result of my frustration with editors who flaunted the ongoing discussions on the talk pages in question. Rather than restoring to reverting, I think endeavoring to convince an editor to get involved in the discussion by messaging them or by requesting advice from a more senior editor would be more productive.XavierGreen (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression at the time that this edit made by User:XavierGreen was made during a discussion that was ongoing for a few days, at a point when no resolution had been reached yet. Which resulted in my (in hindsight rather unhappy) action, and which in turn triggered his. It's a pity that all of this led to the present situation and I feel that I'm partly to blame for the situation as it stands now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

I added the following comments at the subject article's talk page:

@XavierGreen: keeps adding Castle into the infobox. There is no consensus to make that change. XavierGreen has attempted to re-add Castle at least three times on Sept. 6th at these edits: [12][13][14] I am politely asking XavierGreen to remove Castle from the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierGreen:, please remove Castle from the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, if there are multiple, reliable sources that say that Castle will be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility to achieve at least 270 electoral votes, then he can be added. Until then, he should not be in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments on the relevant articles talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a VPP discussion about distinguishing between terrorist attacks and non-terrorist attacks, if you would like to participate. Parsley Man (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders DID NOT win any electoral votes with his write-in-popular votes. So please revert your changes, as it's only adding confusion to the Results section. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not revert, the situation is the same as in 1972 with John Hospers. Sanders was a bonafide candidate for President in the general election in California therefore at least his popular vote should be included in the results section near the bottom of the page. Please take any further discussion to the relevant talk page since there are other editors involved, i have put this information there as well.XavierGreen (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered a compromise to split the Results section into 2 subsections, in hopes of avoiding the confusion/misinformation that you & others are (unintentionally) promoting. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the discussion-in-question that you began, into an Rfc. I hope I've formed the Rfc question in an accurate & neutral manner. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before, Bernie Sandars was a declared presidential candidate in California.XavierGreen (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it's no coincidence you picked this moment to start bickering, at least would you mind choose another time to restart edit warring? Bertdrunk (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

y, so you arent obliged == USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente scheduled for TFA ==

This is to let you know that the USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 February 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2017. Note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't required to take any action. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. You have new messages at Talk:South_African_Republic.
Message added 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

PS - Saw your userpage, you must be in a exclusive club to be interested so much in the Quasi War! TuckerResearch (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its an interesting period in American history, expecially since most of the records regarding the war were destroyed when the British burned Washington, D.C. in the war of 1812. Regarding the South African Republic, i have responded to your remarks on that articles talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your help on New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2017! Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide additional information, such as the name of the author/photographer and their lifetime, so that potential re-users in countries not following the rule of the shorter term can determine when any remaining copyright in this image expires for them.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to avoid an edit war.....I start a conversation on the mass changes not vented to the sources used.--Moxy (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politely requesting you undo your removal - see the talk page, there is wide consensus that the mention is correctly placed in the article. Thanks! Morty C-137 (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There was no such thing as a "colonial empire" back in the 13th century, see Colonial empire ("The colonial empires began with a race of exploration between the then most advanced maritime powers, Portugal and Spain, during the 15th century"; my emphasis), which is why I originally removed it. The scattered Scandinavian settlements in Greenland, Iceland, the British Isles, Russia and elsewhere before that were not colonies by modern definitions, especially not Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes since there was no native population there when the Scandinavians arrived. So please self-revert. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]