User talk:Miracle dream

/Archive 1
/Archive 2

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Miracle dream. 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]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal number

I'm not quite sure what your point is by removing the word 'another' from the sentence about Conway's definition in the introduction. It is a fact that there are several equivalent definitions, and Alling's definition in terms of transfinite Hahn series was published 12 years before Conway's book came out. Your phrasing makes it sound as if Conway was the first to define them, is that what you intend? Lhmathies (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we could clear that up, feel free to remove this section when you've read it.Lhmathies (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Great Wall (film). 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Miracle dream. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWII

FYI Talk pages discussions at World War Two have re-opened. You contributed relatively recently, so please chime in. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Miracle dream. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese Army strength in Burma

See Talk:Burma_Campaign_1944–45#Gurkhas. I came up with a figure of three battalions which definitely fought in Burma (out of eight). I may have underestimated by one or two units. HTH. HLGallon (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please offer the figure with source. If you have reliable source, put the detailed strength of Nepalese forces in Burma and give the detailed information which battles these Nepalese forces involved, I will not revert any of these. Miracle dream (talk)

Unfortunately, the figure I came up with is derived from one printed and one online source, and could be dismissed as WP:SYN. I looked it up merely to separate "Gurkhas" and "Nepalese". However, one battle in which Nepalese units (in this case the Shere Regiment) definitely took part is the Battle of Kohima, although as a raw unit their contribution was generally dismissed or merely mentioned offhand in most histories. HLGallon (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese Royal Army units were also engaged at the Battle of Sangshak, were two companies of the Royal Nepalese Army's Kali Bahadur Regiment consisting of some 200 men were engaged.[[1]]. As HLGallon stated, it is well sourced that Nepalese Army troops were engaged in combat in the U Go offensive into India and the 1944-1945 Burma Offensive.XavierGreen (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierGreen. As I said before, put the detailed strength of Nepalese forces in infobox of article Burma Campaign. If you also edit the strength section of infobox with reliable source, I will not revert again.@XavierGreen Hence, please also edit the strength section of infobox. Miracle dream (talk)

There is no requirement that the exact troop strength be stated for them to be listed a belligerent in the campaign, the sources i've stated indicated that three battalions of troops participated in the campaign, they do not give an exact figure for the number of troops that participated in the campaign, although some of them indicate specific numbers of Royal Nepalese Army troops that were present at particular engagements like at the Battle of Sangshak.XavierGreen (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Thoughts on Listing Commanders in Pacific War Infobox?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pacific_War#Infobox_(March_2019). Emiya1980 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Please don't use old sources for Chinese writing/inscriptions

I've found newer sources and fixed several related articles. We should also not use the news media as a source for archaeology, particularly a 12 year old source. THanks. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Confucianism into Voltaire. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Invasion of Normandy, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Note: It appears that while did try to add your signature at a later time, you did so manually and there were errors in both the link to your user talk page and the time. That has since been corrected. FYI - wolf 12:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock block

Based on your abusive edits with IPs and your past history of socking, I have blocked you indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request a block removed or block reduced. I don't think my edition should be blocked indefinitely. I think at least I can have a block reduced. Please check my edition history. I never invloved any edition war. When I reverted someone's edition, if he reverted again I will give up to revert again or I will start a discussion in talk page. However, whenever I invloved in a discussion in talk page, I just put my point in that page and that's it. You will never see I debate with anyone. If others support my point, that's good. if not, I will not continue to debate. For example, please see Talk:Invasion_of_Normandy#About US position in infobox] and [2].For my past history of socking, during that time, I did not even invloved any discussion so that I did not disrupt discussions or distort consensus.I even did not revert any edition in that time. For edition itself, I sometimes didn't login in. However, when I did not login in, I will not edited anything in that page again and just put only one or two edition. I just put my point and never tried to debate anything. That means I never involved edition war, made vandalism, disrupted discussions, distorted consensus or avoided sanctions. Actually I rarely discussed with others. For my IP address, currently wiki was blocked in my region, if I don't use this IP, I cannot open any wiki page. I hope admin can check my edition history (include my past problem). I never do anything disputed or disrupted. I think blocked indefinitely is too much and I deserved a chance in this coummunity.

Decline reason:

You seem to be claiming your violations of WP:SOCK were appropriate, were not a problem. That's incorrect. They were blatant violations. Yamla (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2019 (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.

@Yamla At first, I want to know whether I create a sock account.
@YamlaThen, I don't say it was not a problem. What I mean is I think I can request a blocked reduced. I think blocked indefinitely was too much because at least I never made vandalism, disrupted discussions, distorted consensus or avoided sanctions. I never have conflict with others in discussion. Blocked indefinitely means I need to leave the wiki community and lost every chance for edition forever. Hence, I hope a blocked reduced.