User talk:Lugnuthemvar

Do you have any proof of what you claim (that NDF is headed by army officers)?--HC PUNXKID 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NDF has offices in government-controlled cities across Syria. Residents say many have training centers run by Syrian officers. in the link i provided on the talk pageLugnuthemvar (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War edits

Hi, I think the deletion you have done on the Iraq War page is quite reasonable. However, I would draw your attention to WP:3RR, the 3 revert rule which says no one can revert an edit three times in 24 hours. Whether you agree with this rule or not, it is likely to be used to get you blocked, so I suggest you are mindful of the reversions you do, and engage in discussion of the issues on the talk pages. If you put up arguments there no one is allowed to take them down, and a rational argument will usually win out in the end. Keep up the good work. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuthemvar, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Lugnuthemvar! 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! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Al-Otaiba ambush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lebanese and Chechen

45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sokolniki

Black Sea Fleet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Kerch Strait

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have queried your revert of my edit

I have queried your revert of my edit here. I would appreciate an explanation there. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Western Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Don, Tula, Bear Lake, Pechenga, Kamenka, Luga and Gorelovo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simferopol Incident

I thought that perhaps you'd like to give your opinion about the deletion of Simferopol Incident article. Have a nice day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simferopol_incident Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 3rd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Komsomolsk, Argun and Shali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Georgy Shpak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Baltic, Rodina and Sergey Ivanov

Comando Raggruppamento Subacquei e Incursori Teseo Tesei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lebanon War and UNOSOM

Viktor Chirkov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pacific Fleet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 56th Guards Air Assault Brigade may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

In December 1979, the brigade was relocated to the [Democratic Republic of Afghanistan]] and joined the [[40th Field Army]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spetsnaz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Spetsgruppa "B" (''Vympel'')''' or '''Vega''', among other names) was formed in 1981, merging two elite Cold War-era [[KGB]] special units—Cascade (''Kaskad'') and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOD and non-MOD armed forces

I had a long discussion with the senior Russian expert and Editor of the Military Balance back on the subject of Russian services at the IISS in 2001. I asked him why, for example, a bunch of the militarised forces, organised on military lines and armed, were not listed in the Military Balance. He said they had to draw the line somewhere, and the line they drew was MOD/non MOD armed forces. We write here at Wikipedia for the generalist, not the specialist, and we would not be adding the FBI's HRT or the CIA's SAD to the list of military special forces units. For that reason I believe we should stick to MOD armed forces for Russia on the SF page. Even if so, in any case, until you add a citation specifically saying the FSB units are legally armed forces, no doubt they may be removed as unreferenced (WP:BURDEN) given the culling that has occurred for lack of references on that page. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IISS's rule has not changed, whether in 2001 or today. To be honest, I'd take that over a vague rule over some chat over the internet. Also, do not remove citation needed tags - that's against policy. You will face sanctions if you do so again. The only thing that one is allowed to do in that case is to provide a citation. I am determined to clean up that page, and I have User:Nick-D's support. You're quite free to help, but you must follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Buckshot's approach, and other editors have made similar clean ups in the past. I'd be happy to discuss the grounds for inclusion/exclusion of different units on the article's talk page though, of course. Reggards, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to stick to the page title. Of course, other pages can always be created, as you will see with the list of subsidiary pages under the intro text. The page title defines the subject, and that subject needs to be support with reliable sources, including citations. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

56th Guards Air Assault Brigade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Soya, Tula, Panjshir, Mor, Logar and Khanabad

Eastern Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Chita, Komsomolsk, Severnyy, Gornyy, Nikolskoe and Amur

Southern Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Troitskaya, Aksai and Shali

Central Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Samara

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Marine Corps Critical Skills Operator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War in Afghanistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mexicans of European descent. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

June 2014

Your recent editing history at Mexicans of European descent 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. Retartist (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. ★ Nacho ★ ★ 09:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of the edit warring complaint. The next person who reverts the article at Mexicans of European descent is risking a block without further notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 23 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Canadian usage is soccer. That's why it's there. Piping is the correct usage. I suggest you self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the proper usage is not canadian. that's just a nick for the sport. Also i highlighted the usage after the proper usage everywhereLugnuthemvar (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see you're up for edit warring. I'll join that discussion shortly.

However, if you look at this edit, you're piping a term to itself and that's clearly wrong form and will be fixed by a bot or another editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing a Canadian subject, the correct usage is Canadian. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

except association football isn't a canadian subject. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lugnuthemvar. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football‎‎.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is particularly bad since it not only violates WP:ENGVAR it also violates WP:NOTUSA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

only if i force one over the other. i didn't. I added the US/Canadian terms as well. you're freaking out over nothing Lugnuthemvar (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really freaking-out, just frustrated that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Did you read ENGVAR and NOTUSA? While you're reading, take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Association football, you have a lot of other pipes to fix like those that simply list "football" and those that go through "football (soccer)". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Lugnuthemvar reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, my name's Lord Roem. After reviewing a report on the edit warring noticeboard, it appears you and another user may be engaged in an edit war over added content to the page. This is a warning, given to both users, to stop reverting each other and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page. If this continues, you both may be blocked. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior

First, the two sources cited in the military casualties section made no mention of 29 dead. Second, calling me a smartmouth is a violation of Wikipedia policy on civility and assuming good faith. Third, if you gave me a chance I would have provided a proper source which says 29 dead soldiers which you didn't provide earlier. Which I have added at this moment. EkoGraf (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting at 2006 Lebanon War

Please note that 2006 Lebanon War is covered by the ARBPIA WP:1RR rule. There is a large notice on its talk page about this. Editors who make two reverts in 24 hours may be blocked. If you intend to make a prominent change to the infobox and you believe that such a change improves neutrality, it would be logical for you to employ the talk page to explain your reasoning. So far you have not commented on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Your recent editing history at 2006 Lebanon War 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. 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.
You was already warned and yet you reverted please self revert Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Lugnuthemvar reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating WP:1RR at 2006 Lebanon War, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

referencing sources

You should take care to reference you sources properly. Use the templates. This is what a proper reference supposed to look like:

{{cite news| url=http://www.vedomosti.ru/finance/news/29455981/vvp-rossii-v-pervom-polugodii-vyros-na-1-minekonomrazvitiya |publisher=[[Vedomosti]]| title=ВВП России в первом полугодии вырос на 1% — Минэкономразвития| date=27 July 2014|accessdate=7 August 2014|language=Russian}}

I'm not going to fix it for you.

Also, please don't stuff this article with irrelevant, outdated and inaccurate information. I made a lot of effort to clean it up.

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GOE (Brazil), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jiu Jitsu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Icons

Please stop adding flag icons to the infoboxes. Please read WP:INFOBOXFLAG. GB fan 19:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Economy of Russia and Russia seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
If you have a problem with the IMF as a source, take it to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Russia, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you.

See the "Russia" talk page here, here, here and, finally, the outcome of the dispute resolution here. Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lugnuthemvar. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 10:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~~Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)~~--Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for edit warring at Russia

Your recent editing history 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. 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.

Spetsnaz

Edit the section instead of deleting it, clearly you have time on your hands. Beslan and Moscow theater crisis were major operations in Russia and yes they were controversial, but they happened and controversial or not they were major events in Russia. If you want to include other operations do so instead of deleting the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 00:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the page instead of deleting it, whats the problem. It is not vilification, these events happened, these are some of the biggest operations they have conducted. Because they did not turn out as planned does not mean that they are any less important. How about editing out the Vietnam War completely out of US History page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spetsnaz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ossetian and Ingush. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Force

Hello, That website does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for being a reliable source. It appears to be someone's Google documents pages, with no information whatsoever about who they are or their qualifications. Please don't re-add this material unless you can provide a much stronger reference. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what if it's base source? but ok Lugnuthemvar (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read WP:RS and WP:V. Unattributed unofficial pages you find on the internet are not reliable sources: in general sources need to be works published by a source with either demonstrated expertise, or a demonstrated reputation for fact checking. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

does this count? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/sfod-d.htm Lugnuthemvar (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalSecurity.org is a think tank and should be considered a WP:BIASED source. Dependent on the context, content from that source may or may not be accepted according to consensus. Where such sources are used, they should be attributed in the content per WP:INTEXT. If you think that the source is appropriate for an article and other editors don't agree with you, it may be worth starting a thread on the Reliable Sources noticeboard explaining exactly where you believe it is worthy of being used and why you think it is reliable in the context. If you do start a discussion there, please make certain that you give precise details as to the circumstances and article, as the RS/N is not for generalised discussions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of special police units

added a link pointing to Smerch

Spetsnaz

added a link pointing to Smerch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 4th Shock Police Battalion

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 4th Shock Police Battalion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from Machine-translated version of http://operacoesespeciaisbrasil.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/4-bpchq-batalhao-de-elite-comemora-2.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. bobrayner (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Beloki, 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.

bobrayner (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.