User talk:Anasaitis

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

Contents

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

ISIS[edit]

You added the capture of Fallujah in the infobox as an "important event". You obviously haven't read the article. It is not mentioned it. Readers will be confused if they cannot find anything about it in the article. Please either add information to the article or remove the reference from the infobox. Thanks. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is just to tell you I have replied to your message on my Talk page, as I am not sure you will be notified since your username is red-linked. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed several edits that appear pro-ISIL and go against consensus on the ISIL article. Specifically, ISIL is not a State and is highly unlikely to ever achieve statehood. I realize you are new to Wikipedia, and am happy to answer any questions. Just remember the ISIL article is very high traffic and subject to community sanctions for edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? I am not sure there ever was a consensus on some of these points, was there? Were they not just edits that were made and not challenged, and then challenged quite heavily later on? It would be useful to know where these consensus discussions are, as I cannot remember them. Strictly speaking, "consensus" is formed after discussions among editors on what form a particular edit should take. There are lots of examples of them in the Talk pages, many now archived. On "pro-ISIL", I think you will find that the majority of editors who wish to keep the article neutral and comply with WP:NPOV tend to be thought of as pro-ISIL, when the attempt is not to whitewash ISIL, but to tell the facts as they are in as neutral way as possible. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I have left a message for you and Lor on Lor's Talk page here. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. LorChat 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note. You have appeared to have broken the One revert rule Currently active on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. LorChat 22:25, 12 December 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anasaitis reported by User:Lor (Result: ). Thank you. LorChat 22:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist![edit]

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Fallujah[edit]

We spoke about your edit on Fallujah earlier. I was looking at earlier versions of ISIS and noticed Fallujah was mentioned in the article in January this year here. As we said, the capture of Fallujah is not mentioned in the article now, but it is in the Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events article. I also found some reports of the event on Google here. Do you want to add back the information into the main article in the "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" part of the "History" section and the infobox? Please do keep contributing to the Talk page as there are some important discussions going on there at the moment. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Legacypac. Your recent edit to the page Islamic State of Iraq appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This terrorist group is not, and was never, a country. Do not reintroduce the former country infobox again. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, you have been asked multiple times to stop deleting information like this from articles. You made the same arguement on ISIL's page, and you were asked to stop. The infoobox cites two sources within it. Those sources were investigated and selected by another user, and I have checked them out myself. They are reliable. What seems to be the problem here is that you are trying to make the articles reflect your own political views. Facts are not based on politics. We all hate ISIL, but we cannot just pretend they have no control over the territory which they have conquered. The articles must reflect the reality of the situation. ISIL isn't just some trigger happy group of terrorists. They are also a self-declared state that, while lacking recognition by any world government, maintains effective control over parts of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. We cannot just ignore that. Now, will you please stop deleting relevant material? It is quite annoying when I have to go behind you and re-add what you delete. If you want to discuss the issue, do so on my talk page, and please provide a legitimate reason for deletion of the infoobox. Thank you. Anasaitis (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are here to promote the idea that ISIL is a state your wikipedia editing ability will be ended pretty quickly. I provided a reason - they are not a state - this has been established all over Wikipedia by many editors. We clearly call them a rebel group controlling territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_who_control_territory and all pages need to reflect that status, not any kind of State, recognized, unrecognized, current or historical. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not here to promote anything. I am merely trying to point out that your edits are politically bias. You may think they aren't an unrecognized state, but the people editing ISIL's article disagree. I am not going to waste my time trying to argue with you. I'm here to make UNBIASED edits. Anasaitis (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm PhantomTech. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Halstead Place, with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. PhantomTech (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Someone incorrectly redirected the page to Halstead, England. Halstead Place was the name of an historic home in Ocean Springs, Mississippi that was tragically destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. I was going to add the information when I was finished with my research. Anasaitis (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Carolina in the American Civil War. 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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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.
You've tried to add this infobox five times now and been reverted each time. You have never gone to the talk page to discuss it as is required per WP:BRD. The next step is reporting your disruptive editing to ANI. Red Harvest (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Novorossiya (confederation), you may be blocked from editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? Excuse me? I have done no such thing. I don't know why people keep arguing that the two people's republics over in Ukraine haven't unified, but the people over there consider themselves one nation. I actually spoke with a few of them online, and they clearly stated that they consider themselves citizens of Novorossiya. Furthermore, look at how they have merged there armies, and how they have presented a unified front in the face of the Ukrainian army. All evidence clearly points to a single entity in the form of a provisional government. Now, before I go on, please do not interpret this as my being biased towards the rebels. I've adopted a neutral position when examining the conflict, which is necessary when conducting research. Nor is this opinion based upon just my personal observations. In fact, I didn't even propose the capital was Donetsk. I simply noticed that significant portions of infobox had been deleted, and felt that some of that deleted material was still relevant. I have concocted no misinformation, and I detest the very idea of vandalism. As such, I cannot help but take personal offense at this accusation. I am not some deceitful punk who vandalizes sites for fun! i suggest you look up what the capital of Novorossiya is to verify the fact. Every nation has a capital, even unrecognized ones, so the answer must be out there, and based on my own research, I have little doubt that it is Donetsk. I will look into the matter when I can, but it may take some time, as I am very busy. Nonetheless, you wound me with your accusation, and I see it as a personal insult. Anasaitis (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for hurting your feelings. Please read Talk:Novorossiya (confederation), including the archives. It is a conceptual state, and there are no reliable sources discussing it as a term still relevant to the Donetsk-Lugansk Republic's 'merger'. It's irrelevant whether you've been in contact with people online, or even whether you - personally - stated that you consider yourself to be a citizen of Novorossiya. That's known as original research which is simply not accepted for the purposes of Wikipedia. We draw on information through secondary sources and do not analyse, speculate, or make conjectures. Last year it was declared a failed project by one of the main figures who'd promoted the movement. Since then, there are no reliable sources discussing it as being applicable to the existing, unrecognised state/s.
My suggestion is that you read the talk pages of articles you wish to work on with great care before you try to edit them (most particularly contentious articles). I've added a welcome note to your page which will help you to familiarise yourself our policies and guidelines, and also suggest that you familiarise yourself with these. Finally, if I could offer you some advice, it's very, very difficult to start your experience as a new editor by jumping into the deep end by trying to tackle the most contentious articles. You are bound to come out of the experience bruised, battered and feeling very negative about the project. For the sake of giving yourself time to get through the learning curve, it really is best to start on articles that interest you, but need a bit of a tidy, etc. Whether you wish to follow my advice is, of course, entirely up to you, and I certainly can't force you to stay away from articles subject to sanctions (see WP:ARBEE). Wishing you all the best, and hoping that your enjoy being part of the Wikipedia project! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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.


Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Republic of Crimea. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Louisiana secession 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 get 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. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Insulting edit summaries[edit]

The insulting edit summaries are not helping your arguments. You don't seem to appreciate what constitutes reliable sources or even what the nature of the dispute is. Please take a look at the discussion. If you can provide reliable sources that support "Republic of Louisiana" as an official name, then there would be a basis for inclusion and discussion. Red Harvest (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology on my talk page. Red Harvest (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Kind of sourcing needed for "Republic of" naming[edit]

I've looked at all of the links your provided, but none of them is even close to satisfying RS for this. One or two of them are sufficient for a nickname, but there is as yet no evidence of any interim name change. I'll break them down below:

  • The two coin links don't seem to describe any coin with the name, or even a state coin the was different from the U.S. one other than the year.
  • Joiner did not provide any source for the republic name. Operating as a de facto republic and changing the name of the state are two separate things.
  • A period personal letter by an unknown author with the name "Republic of" is not any more official than someone sending a letter today with "People's Republic of California." (It could be sufficient to establish it as a period nickname, boast, or slur.) Now, if some sort of postal cancellation stamp was used on the envelope with the description it would add some weight at least very locally. Red Harvest (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Perrin's book link refers only to a list associated with flags, and without notes as to the source of the name. While the name chosen is useful for classifying the timeline in the list, that does not make it an official name.
  • ElectronicScotland uses the name in parenthesis as does the original text. This makes sense because it was not the actual name.
  • Jefferson Historical Society is not providing any notes/sources for its flag page. It is far from RS. Unreferenced, erroneous/hearsay flag pages have been the primary sources for several of the deleted articles.
  • Patriotic Flags website is even more dubious than the above since it is a web sales listing.
  • Fodors provides no notes or sourcing for the name.
  • And the worst example is the Markgchurchill blog. Why? Because if you check the hyperlink within it is a circular reference to Wikipedia! The page it referenced was named and created by a 12 year old (in good faith.) I've seen this sort of thing happen a number of times, where something mistakenly written in Wikipedia becomes the source for blogs and even news articles.

Summarizing, what we need are some official acts/legisltation/govt. proclamations etc. using "Republic of Louisiana" as an official name. This would work as primary sourcing. Reliable secondary sourcing would most likely refer to them, completing the picture. Red Harvest (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

League of Lezhë[edit]

The League of Lezhë was a military alliance rather than political union.--Zoupan 21:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless the dispute has been dissolved, the page should remain the same. The last time I checked, the dispute was still being discussed. Anasaitis (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion ended in June 2013. See Talk:League_of_Lezhë#Military_alliance.--Zoupan 22:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Very well. As long as the debate has ended, then the article can be changed. I will check on the discussion myself, to make sure, when I can find the time. Anasaitis (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do. Thank you.--Zoupan 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. ElKevbo (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

What? How am I engaging in an edit war? All I did was disagree with you over the contents of one article. I made one edit, and that's it. I haven't made multiple revisions, and I left no insults on the talk page. I have done nothing wrong. There is no edit war to speak of. Anasaitis (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Do not leave half-arsed bull messages for me. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC) My apologies if you were offended by my message. Please try to understand that it has been frustrating dealing with users who have made the same edit. They are going against the consensus, and other users have even had the nerve to lie to me with claims to the contrary. As such, I am at wit's end. My apologies if I let my frustrations get the better of me. Anasaitis (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No problems! It's one of those subjects. Keep Calm and Carry On! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

1RR[edit]

Hello. You appear to have already broken the WP:1RR (one revert per 24 hours rule) at the article ISIL for which you may get blocked. Please slow down on your reverts and seek consensus first, especially when other editors disagree with your views. Thanks. Khestwol (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of violating such a rule. Technically speaking, I've only been able to revert once or twice (see the discussion on the talk), and even if that doesn't matter, any violation of the rule was strictly unintentional. Also, next time please read the note on the edit page before you edit the infobox, please. Thank you. Anasaitis (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgPlease read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester 19:52, 21 August 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anasaitis reported by User:RGloucester (Result: ). Thank you. RGloucester 21:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, including the violation of a 1RR restriction that was imposed by applicable community-authorized discretionary sanctions, as you did at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Swarm 07:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
From WP:EW: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring." Note that per WP:1RR, a 1RR restriction is treated in exactly the same way as the overarching 3RR restriction. Either way, reaching the revert limit and then reverting again after little more than 24 hours is still likely to be treated as a violation per WP:GAMING, and that is precisely what you appeared to be doing on the article. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you were coming from. A disputed piece of content undergoing an active RfC should arguably not be changed when the discussion is still ongoing. However, making the change was hardly unreasonable given the large majority in favor of doing so in the RfC. Repeatedly reverting over it is not the solution and not an excuse for edit warring, especially on an article with a very strict reversion restriction. Swarm 07:58, 23 August 2015 (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.

Anasaitis (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I had no intention of violating any rules. I was just trying to prevent the infobox from being changed while the discussion was ongoing. Furthermore, the claims that I made my edits without discussion are completely unfounded, as can be seen by my comments on the talk page. If any other rule has been violated, I will change my methods accordingly. I have nothing but respect for the rules of this wiki, and I had no intention of violating them. Anasaitis (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: you just don't edit war. Discussion or not, following consensus or not is irrelevant, just don't do it. Max Semenik (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Your continued edit-war at ISIL article[edit]

Please stop disrupting the page, and self-revert. My revert was as per WP:BANREVERT. I made the edit because your edit was in violation of 1RR (one revert per 24 hours rule as applicable to that article), and because your edit was against the majority opinion. At least 3 other editors have also reverted your edits (Ritsaiph, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Lr0^^k, etc) so I am not alone to have done so. Request to the admin Swarm: please review Anasaitis' unblock. Is the user WP:HERE really here to build a neutral Wikipedia, after making again the very same edit he was banned for as soon as being unblocked? Khestwol (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, A consensus was reached and the discussion was closed. Anasaitis (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment from the RfC: "Consensus is clearly against retaining infobox country at the top of the article." Hence, don't add the country infobox. Khestwol (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I merely restored what Iryna Harpy added. I wnt this to end. Furthermore, after looking at the history of this article, it seems to me that the only reason there is any form of consensus for a war faction is due to the fact that the majority of those who supported the country infobox have been blocked. How conveniant for you. Anasaitis (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy did not add anything. She only reverted you but then self-reverted. Now failing to accept the consensus and continued edit-war, an admin may decide to block you again. That seems the only way for the edit-war to end, if your behavior continues. Khestwol (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You'd like that, wouldn't you? You know, ever since I joined Wikipedia and started arguing in favor of the country infobox, I have been accused of being Pro-ISIL, subtly threatened, and constantly arguing against the same petty arguement being presented over and over again for the war faction infobox. These arguements reek of bias, and are based more on opinion than fact. Now that I've had the time to look at the history of the article itself and the talk page, I've realized that that there were a lot more editors besides Spellcast and myself that have argued for the infobox country, and surprise, surprise, all have been blocked, many of them indefinitely. the same can't be said of the opposing side of the arguement. As I've continued to dig, I've found more interesting things. Now, am I saying you alone were responsible for this? Of course not. But what I am starting to suspect is that over the course of the history of this article, people like you appear to have been making sure that people that disagreed with your opinions were blocked. The reports filed against these users were not by neutral editors, but by people who clearly supported the war-faction infobox. So, if that is true, consensus would have been reached through what amounts to bullying, intimidation, and other dirty tactics. I will continue to look into this, and should I find Evidence that proves to be more damning, I will report it. Anasaitis (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Anasaitis, I only self-reverted because I wanted the edit-warring to end until an neutral admin closed the RfC. That has now been done, and the decision has been made that it stands as 'war faction'. Khestwol is correct: if you continue your WP:BATTLE against consensus, you will end up blocked from editing this area of Wikipedia (if not blocked from editing, full stop). You're not going to accomplish anything, so stop edit warring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Anasaitis, I believe you misunderstood some of my comments before. I also voted "yes" in the RFC. The pattern of blocks hasn't been limited to the issue of which infobox to use, and I've been trying (and mostly failing) to keep people from getting blocked and banned by warning them to be very careful to stick to the rules, especially about civility and edit warring. Bear in mind you can't vote if/when you're blocked, so I'd rather you did not get blocked. Banak (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I'm aware of your reasons for self-reverting. There was no misunderstanding there. And Banak, I'm also well aware that I misunderstood your edits. I meant to apologize, but it slipped my mind. So, you have my apologies. I would also like to point out that I have no intention of edit warring, though I will continue to dispute this consensus. Normally, I have no problem with consensus. See my discussion of the League of Lezhë above. In this case, however, I can't help but feel that the consensus wasn't reached fairly, due to the fact that many of the editors who would have aged with me have been blocked. As I told Khestwol earlier, I am not accusing anyone in particular of wrongdoing, though I do feel that some users have used bullying and intimidation to get their way.the harsh restrictions on the article itself hasn't helped matters, and people have taken advantage of it. I must apologize if my previous comments were made in frustration. I was merely angered by the fact that I was blocked after I had already agreed on the talk page that the edit warring needed to stop. I suppose you could say I was venting my frustrations though my comments. Sorry about that. Rest assured that I have no intention of edit warring, thoughI will continue to argue in favor of using the country infobox on the talk page. I will also continue to examine the history of the article for any evidence of wrongdoing in the hopes of figuring out if and when any abuse of privileges or other actions were committed. Should I find it necessary, I will report such actions when enough evidence has been gathered. For now, though, I see no need to. Anasaitis (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 September[edit]

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

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) 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Re: [1] That article is under 1RR which I believe you have violated. Just self revert, open a new section on the talkpage and discuss it there. See WP:BRD. Fyi, all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are under 1RR. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ugh! Editing these articles is a real pain! Look, it won't happen again. Just please stop making erroneous changes to the blasted infobox. Accuracy based on true nature of the conflict takes precedence over how accurately the map reflects the conflict. I didn't make the map, and I had no say in the matter. The only reason the Kurds are listed separately is because they inhabit an autonomous region within Iraq that has it's own seperate armed forces. They are on the same side as the Iraqi forces. If you're wondering why there listed separately in Syria, it's because they have fought both government and rebel forces. They have no official autonomous region within Syria, which is why they joined the fighting. They want an autonomous Syrian Kurdistan, just as the Iraqi Kurds have an autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. Therefore, they are listed separately from the government and rebel factions. The Iraqi Kurds, on the other hand, already have an autonomous region. They don't always get along with the main Iraqi government, but so far this has not resulted in armed conflict between the two, Instead, they, like the main Iraqi army, are engaging ISIL. They are allies. The combatant section of the armed conflict infobox is for OPPOSING sides of the conflict. I know it's can be confusing, and this isn't the first time that allied forces have been give different colors on the map, but that's just the way it is. Now please, I'm begging you, don't turn this into another frustrating and ridiculous debate based on personal opinions rather than fact. I've had to deal with one two many of those lately, and I don't need another one. Anasaitis (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a real pain, but note that the sanctions is there to ease tension, not to build them up. I am not sure they work as intended, but as the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay says: If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. That discussion should be on the articles talk page to allow other editors to comment. You just create a new discussion, and discuss it. I have started the discussion here: Talk:Iraq_War_(2014–present)#Belligerents, so let's try to establish a consensus there before we change it again. Ok? Erlbaeko (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Please, do not revert during ongoing discussion. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion. See WP:EW and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Medes[edit]

Reverted you there as your edit contradicts the source. If you have academic sources that back the 678 date, please discuss them at the talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anasaitis, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoops (flag of the South African Republic)[edit]

I accidentally read the diff backwards. Sorry for reverting :) --BurritoBazooka (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, my friend. Mistakes happen. Anasaitis (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan[edit]

Hey, Just a heads up - this edit[2] to Pakistan was reverted by Xinjao. Please discuss on the talkpage before reverting back. Curro2 (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Stop icon

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) 05:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You're now doing the same on the LPR article, and you've overstepped 3RR. I'm not going to report it, but will do so should you try this again. The RfC has not been evaluated or closed. Stop jumping ahead of yourself or you're going to get yourself blocked... and that serves no purpose. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

First you thank me, and now you threaten me? All I did was restore the infobox to it's pre-edit war state and ask that other users stop trying to change the infobox until a consensus is reached. Before this started, the article used the country infobox. That infobox has been used since 2014. Since a consensus on change has not been reached, I restored the original infobox. How is that edit warring? Anasaitis (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already responded to this in the comment you left on my talk page. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

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

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) 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.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and 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 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Anasaitis. 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)

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

US-O11 insignia.svg 6 Star.svg
Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg

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) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Redirection of list of state leaders in 2016 and list of state leaders in 2017 to list of state leaders in the 21st century[edit]

On 4 January Tahc redirected List of state leaders in 2016 and List of state leaders in 2017 to List of state leaders in the 21st century without any reason. Neither I, nor you, nor other contributors of these articles expressed the accord to these action which I consider abusive. Please sustain me in the action for annulment of this action,express your protest to TAHC and ask the reversion of redirections. Thank you Bogdan Uleia (talk)

March Madness 2017[edit]

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)

Recognizing Good Work[edit]

Barnstar of Integrity Hires.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For diligence/even temper on Rankings and elsewhere Sleyece (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election[edit]

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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Anasaitis. 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)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting[edit]

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) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians[edit]

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) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive[edit]

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)

Gamergate Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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 all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.

A reminder that BLP applies everywhere. Cheers!--Jorm (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: please remember that the article is under a 1RR regime. Acroterion (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

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)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

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)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

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.

Date of formation of Greece[edit]

Hey, you recently removed the mention to 338BC on the infobox of Greece. There is currently a discussion on the talkpage about whether or not it should be removed; feel free to add your support for the removal. --Michail (blah) 21:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say![edit]

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) 03:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)