User talk:AbelM7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


August 2013[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to List of wars involving the United States has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

AbelM7, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi AbelM7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AbelM7. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 03:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Argentine American#Argentino_americano". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 21:23, Friday July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge


Continued edit warring[edit]

Stop icon

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - BilCat (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I haven't even edit that article in three days until recently and I only got reverted for April 10 edit and the April 13 edit by you, three days apart. There is no edit warring and I didn't break the three-revert rule. The first edit, I didn't explained my edit and in the second one, I did so you guys will understand. AbelM7 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No, he's not kidding. "Edit-warring" does not autimatically mean "3RR violation". Two reverts three days apart can be an edit-war, and the fact you "explained" it does not make it not an edit-war. You are, in fact, currently engaged in multiple edit wars on multiple articles, and if you don't step back from reverting, regardless of how much time passes between reverts, and start discussing, you'll be blocked again, for longer. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it does. There wasn't even an edit war on that article. I explained so there wouldn't be some sort of misconception so an editor would think before he decides to revert or not. And I already have started discussing on another article. And I will start discussing on this article as well. AbelM7 (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello friend[edit]

Sorry i made a typo over at the Canadian talk page - I do agree singular is fine. On a side note you may want to read over Talk:Germans/Archive 6 as there was a similar problem there. -- Moxy (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's okay. Mistakes happen. And thanks, will do! AbelM7 (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Border war issues[edit]

Abel7, Im getting well past feed up with you, if you insist on pushing original research and biased edits i'll have to take this issue to the administrators' noticeboard. You have nothing on favour of your point of view, even the American general John J. Pershing himself considered the campaign a complete failure, stop this pointless edit war. Same goes for you removing my notices on your talk page (if you say that you will attend the issues later, then don't edit any article related to them either). HMWD (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you getting fed up? Is not original research nor biased. I can say the same thing towards you. That's Pershing's thoughts. USA won the war. If you want we could put a American/Carrancista military victory. Stop reverting so this pointless edit war will end. And I already told you I'll get back to you and here I am just like I said. And stop reverting the Mexican War of Independence and Mexican Drug War sections in the List of wars involving of Mexico article. The signing of Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire was an outcome and America and Colombia aren't fighting in the Mexican Drug War, they're just supporting Mexico. AbelM7 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest you seek an external third party's opinion through WP:DRR. See WP:Dispute_resolution. Note that edit warring is likely to get administrators hammering both of you. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Border War (1910–19). 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Favonian (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AbelM7 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I did edit war and for that I'm sorry. I know I can't undo an edit war but I can move forward and learn. I am trying to improve my Wikipedia skills and be a better Wikipedian overall. An example would be now I am using more of the talk pages [1], [2] to interact with other editors, solve disputes, come to a conclusion and better understanding. On the Canadians page, I was made aware of a similar problem that happened in another page and I saw from their point of view and got a better understanding. After that, we were able to resolve another dispute which was a minor one. On the page I was blocked for, Border War (1910–19), I have added sources to back up the results. I want to be unblock because I plan on to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, improving my skills, interact more with others when there is a dispute and assume good faith. AbelM7 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

24 hours is a reasonable block considering that you were given several warnings. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Advice[edit]

Im waiting for your sources, because i don't see any, and stop edit warring HMWD (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

They're in the results section of the Border War infobox, and stop edit warring as well. AbelM7 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Then we have sources refering to the punitive expedition as a success even though it failed it's objetive and other source from pershing himself claiming that it was a failured and that they crawled back at the first repulse, looks like the repulse one has more weight than the other, don't you think? And to add Veracruz and Ambos Nogales while leaving Carrizal out is not appropiate since they were against civilians, while the battle of carrizal was a mexican victory between two armies. HMWD (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The main objective was to capture or kill Pancho Villa so he wouldn't attack America again. Even though they didn't capture or kill Villa, they did succeed in stopping him from being a threat to America. Nope. That's Pershing's own feelings about the outcome and he doesn't take into account the results of the war. He was more than likely feeling dissatisfied do to him not being the one who got to capture/kill Villa. Veracruz and Ambos Nogales were still battles and they had both soldiers and civilians. AbelM7 (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked the reference for the battle of Ambos nogales and it doesn't mention a significant reduction of violence [3], im removing this from the border war article, i will also remove the definitive conclusión of "American victory" and will write inconclusive until we reach an agreement and will add the highligts of the mexican army and the Pershing quote. Finally the batttle of ciudad juarez was a shared victory, not american victory. HMWD (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one who originally wrote "violence decreased significantly after the Battle of Ambos Nogales", that was already there before but it is true. Look at Border War (1910–19)#1918 and Border War (1910–19)#1919 and you'll see after the Battle of Ambos Nogales, which according to the article "became the last major engagement of the Border War", there was only one battle in 1919 which was the Battle of Ciudad Juarez, which according to the article is "considered the last battle of the Border War". In the Battle of Ciudad Juarez, there was the Villistas, the Mexicans supporting Pancho Villa, against the Americans and the Carrancistas, the Mexicans supporting Venustiano Carranza so the battle was a "American/Carrancista victory". It'll be confusing to a "American/Mexican victory" against Mexicans when the Border War was between the United States against Mexico and Germany. AbelM7 (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What if we change it to "Mexican Carranzistas/American victory and declare it victory in the articles of both countries like the garza revolution? And there is only an allegued german casuality, no one knows if that person really was german. HMWD (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There were two German causalities in the Battle of Ambos Nogales and I wouldn't be surprise if they were since Germany was interfering (example: Zimmermann Telegram). I'm going to add the Battle of Ambos Nogales since it was a significant battle. Sure. We can change it to "American/Carranzista victory". I'm going to add the Carranzsitas in the same side as United States in the belligerents section to reflect the fact they fought together and won in the last battle. AbelM7 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you pint me to where (as in, what page) it does say that the violence significantly decreased in the battle of ambos nogales. HMWD (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. It's in the second paragraph of the opening of the Border War article. Here's what is says: "General John J. Pershing, launched an expedition into northern Mexico, to find and capture Villa. Though the operation was successful in finding and engaging the Villista rebels, the revolutionary himself escaped and the American army returned to the United States in January 1917. Conflict at the border continued however and the United States launched several more smaller operations into Mexican territory until 1919 when violence decreased significantly after the Battle of Ambos Nogales. Conflict was not only subject to Villistas and Americans; Maderistas, Carrancistas, Constitutionalistas and Germans also engaged in battle with American forces during this period." AbelM7 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionaly the german empire was in carranza's side (Germany sent the telegram to Carranza), it would be more appropiated to make a third column for Villistas, or make clear that Villistas weren't on the side of Carranzistas. HMWD (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The German Empire wasn't on a specific Mexican group, like Carranzistas or Villistas, side. They were helping Mexico overall in general to star a war with America. They sent the telegram to Carranza since he was the president of Mexico and could declare war. For example, Horst von der Goltz served in Pancho Villa's revolutionary army. AbelM7 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Then it have to go in both teams. I also need the source for the battle of Ambos nogales claim. HMWD (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

References and styling[edit]

Did you found a reference for the claim within the Battle of Ambos Nogales? Otherwise it must be removed. HMWD (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I made some edits on these articles, is important that you realise that Villistas weren't on Carranza's side nor united states side, also that the border war was part of the Mexican revolution and Mexico and Carranza were the primary players. I'll finish tomorrow HMWD (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


WWII infobox[edit]

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to continue?[edit]

I thought that we have made a progress in the affairs involving the border war but you are again removing sourced information (curiously the one that is in favor of Mexico) and adding unsourced claims, stop it, there is no need to take this issue any further. HMWD (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You added more stuff that we did not agree on. I removed some to decrease the amount of outcomes. The violence did decreased after the Battle of Ambos Nogales. Check 1918 and 1919. After Ambos Nogales, only one battle happened in 1919. Please stop, this issue has already been solved. AbelM7 (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The source you've brought to support the battle of ambos nogales claim comes from an unreliable site and constituttes something called a "mirror source" on Wikipedia this is, it copies somethiing written on Wikipedia thus it can't be used on wiki itself, Wikipedia is not a reliabble source. The information you are currently removing is things we did agreed upon, you didn't removed the battle of carrizal nor Pershing acknowledgements until now, you were aware they were there and even edited over them, after they were added.. i urge you to back off and stop behaviing this way. You are also changing the sides on a way that they never were, carrancistas and the USA never were on the same side. HMWD (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Check 1918 and 1919. After Ambos Nogales, only one battle happened in 1919. We agreed on the result. I didn't paid too much attention to the outcomes since I was just happy that we finally resolved this and only removed the periods since periods aren't used in the result section. I checked again and notice that there's too much outcomes especially for a minor war like this. Not even the World War II page, the largest war in history, has that many outcomes. Although the Americans and Carrancistas fought as well, they were on the same side in the very last battle. And I ask you to please back off and stop this behavior. AbelM7 (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You must understand that if something isn't backed up with a source you can't add it, don't interpret sources to your convenience, Wikipedia does not work like that. And you aren't going to fool me, you say that you removed the outcomes because they were too much, but you really think that i don't realise that you did nothing but to remove the Mexican high lights of the battle while leaving only American ones? You know that what you are doing is wrong, this is why you waited to change it (even though we have agreed on it) 4 days and hoped that i was gone by then, but i won't go away. You disappoint me. HMWD (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, I'm not the one who wrote violence significantly decreased after the Battle of Ambos Nogales, that was there already, but it is true. You can check 1918 and 1919 for yourself and see only one battle took place after Ambos Nogales. I already added a source but of course you would try to rule it out. "Occupation of Veracruz

American military is ordered to withdraw from Mexican territory after the defeat in the Battle of Carrizal Pancho Villa's troops no longer an effective fighting force General John J. Pershing acknowledges the failure of the American army to meet the objetives of their campaign Battles between Mexican and American forces ceased in 1919 after the American/Carrancista victory in the Battle of Ciudad Juárez over the Villistas Pancho Villa obtains pardon from the Mexican government" Not even World War II has that many outcomes. In the "List of wars involving" pages, that many outcomes makes the Border War section way too big compare to the other wars. I only left in the most important ones which were the occupation of Veracruz, Pancho Villa becoming ineffective, and the last two battles that ended the war. Not everything that happens during a war is listed in the results section. For example, during World War II, Poland was divided, Finland lost territory, Paris was liberated and so on but not all of those that happened are in the results section. I took a break from Wikipedia on and after Easter and now came back which had nothing to do with you. I wasn't hoping you were gone. Now you're just being paranoid. Nobody is asking you to go away. You disappointed me when you reverted. Why does this war seem to mean so much to you? AbelM7 (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course im going to dismiss your source, it comes from an user generated website and mirros wiki, the "it was already on wiki before you edited it" is not an argument, many things on wiki are wrong and need to be corrected, you say that you didn't knew that i added mexico highlights but i clearly told you so [4] and you agreed and edited after that. you say that you are shortening the outcome but you only remove mexico highlights, if you want to remove anything remove the USA highlights that you are pushing, after all the border war is part of the Mexican revolution and United States was a secondary player. You keep also restoring your unsourced result in the Battle of Parral and as i said above the "it was already there" argument is unvalid. Im tired of arguing with you, i'll report you now HMWD (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We only agreed to the outcome. I've never agreed on that and you didn't said "Mexico highlights". I came back and saw the amount of results you added and it's too much. You're "many things on wiki are wrong and need to be corrected" argument is invalid since those two are right and you only deleted them since you don't want them. The Border War is an international war fought between the United States against Mexico and Germany while the Mexican Revolution is an internal civil war fought between various Mexican groups. There are no "highlights", just results. For example, France defeated Russia in the Battle of Smolensk in the first major battle of the French Invasion of Russia yet this is not included in the results section. I've been tired of arguing with you, and I did the same and reported you. AbelM7 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copy-paste[edit]

I hope your copy and pasting of content from other places is not extensive. I will be reviewing some of your edits over the next few days to see if this is a problem. Please read over Wikipedia:Copy-paste

Conflict at the border continued however and the United States launched several more smaller operations into Mexican territory until 1919 when violence decreased significantly after the Battle of Ambos Nogales


copied from http://prezi.com/npdjmzb5x7jd/us-military-history-1900-1930/-- Moxy (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one who wrote that in the article. That was already in the article page before. [5] As you can see, I changed it somewhat to "Violence significantly decreased after the American victory in the Battle of Ambos Nogales". If you want, I could change it "Violence declined after the American victory in the Battle of Ambos Nogales". AbelM7 (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

Think it may be best to ask those at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about the sources your using. You may find it helpfull as people there will help you find scholarly books instead of website that don't have stellar reputations. You can try using http://books.google.com/ over just a normal search and even better yet try http://scholar.google.com/.

And your right about the copy and pasting...just what are the odd the info comes form the source you just used..very odd. -- Moxy (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. HMWD (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Calidum. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to United States because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Calidum Talk To Me 22:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. I just removed the periods in US since they are not needed. I'll describe it in the edit summary. Sorry for the misunderstanding. AbelM7 (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Foreign relations of Mexico[edit]

Please help me understand what gives you the right to determine what and what is not a continent? It is well established that there are several different views on this topic and I believe that it is un-professional and disrespectful to place what you believe to be right onto others. One's views are attested to where one grows up, and based on how you're rearranging continents, I would say that you grew up in Northern America, i.e the United States. In some changes, you allow the Middle East to remain, which is definitely not a continent and of course Oceania, which, for lack of any other reason, is considered to be a region/continent because if not, where would one place the islands nations of Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu, etc...? Before continuing in making changes throughout the whole templates of foreign relation articles, I would advice that you seek consensus before imposing your singular views on the matter. Regards, Aquintero82, (talk), 13 June 2014, 08:17 (UTC)

No mean for disrespect. I'm not the one who formed the continents but each one are separated by something. Each continent gets its own group. The Americas (North America + South America) is a supercontinent just like how Eurasia (Europe + Asia) and Afro-Eurasia (Africa + Europe + Asia) are also supercontinents. Australia is a continent and Oceania is a region that includes Australia and the Pacific islands. Since the Pacific islands are far away from mainland Australia, they are grouped together in Oceania. Usually the group of Asia in the "Foreign relations of" template is divided into the subcategories "Middle East" and "Elsewhere" but they're all in the Asian group. AbelM7 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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.

This is a warning that continued edit warring over your content dispute at Template:Foreign relations of Mexico may result in a block. Please discuss your disagreement on the template's talk page, not through edit summaries. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)