User talk:Mikrobølgeovn

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Yom Kippur War, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hohum (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikrobølgeovn,

I've recently reverted your edit to the Yom Kippur War article. I assume you did see the unmissable banner at the top stating there is a dispute over the article's neutrality. I also assume you're aware of the discussions going on surrounding the article. If not, these discussions are taking place at Talk:Yom Kippur War. Please do not perform edits in such manner as you did, but partake in discussion first. The reason the infobox is limited to Egypt, Syria and Iraq is explained in the talk page. Cheers :-) Sherif9282 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo. I noticed your recent edits and comments to the Second Lebanon War and the Yom Kippur War. I concur with you that both resulted in a tactical military victory for the IDF but more so with respect to the Yom Kippur War, where Egypt and Syria were decidedly defeated.

Some have argued that the results of the Second Lebanon War were somewhat inconclusive because Hezbollah succeeded in firing rocket salvos until the bitter end. While I agree that Israel scored a long-term strategic success in pushing Hezbollah from the border and in essence scored a military victory, there seems to be some controversy on the subject. Therefore, the issue would be better addressed in the prose under "reactions to conflict" section. Placing "Israeli military victory" in the infobox would probably generate an edit war.

However, in the Yom Kippur War, Israel's victory was clear cut. Precluding this from the infobox constitutes a major error of omission. I share your opinion and favor placing "Israeli military victory" in the infobox and have done so but was reverted by the same editor who reverted your edit. I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment but clearly, the article requires a major overhaul, from start to finish. If you have a good in-depth knowledge of the Yom Kippur War and wish to collaborate with me on the subject, Please drop a message on my Talk page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I couldn't agree with you more. I think we should begin with the Yom Kippur war. The article is heavily slanted in favor of a ficticious Egyptian perspective, utilizing Arabic and Russian sources (written in Arabic and Russian!). The article as it stands now is pure fantasy and is almost painful to read. I placed a notice at the top of the article stating that the sources were problematic. Unfortunately, the two antagonistic editors (sherif and RomaC) tag-teamed against me and reverted the notice on three occasions. Wiki policy regarding non-English sources is clear. They can be used only where English sources are not available. This not the case concerning the Yom Kippur War where there is a wealth of English sources - Zeev Schiff, Edward Luttwak, Martin van Creveld and Chaim Herzog just to name a few.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the sources that I've compiled below, one can not come to any other conclusion but "Israeli military victory."

• "The brute statistics of war indicated an Israeli victory," London Sunday Times, Yom Kippur War @ page 450.
• "As a military feat, the IDF’s performance in the Yom Kippur War dwarfed that in the Six Day War. Victory emerged from motivation that came from the deepest layers of the nation’s being and from basic military skills that compensated for the grave errors of leadership," Abraham Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War, @ page 498.
• "[The Yom Kippur War] is the story of an astounding Israeli victory," Chaim Herzog, The War of Atonement, @ Foreword.
• "The war had profound and long-reaching implications for the leaders of Egypt and Syria. Both Egypt's president Sadat and Syrian president Assad recognized that their countries had come closer to catastrophic defeat than in 1967, and that it was absolutely imperative to avoid another war. That led to Sadat's peace and Assad's 1974 cease-fire on the Golan Heights, never violated since then." Edward Luttwak, Misreading the Lebanon war
• "On October 24, 1973 when Israel finally implemented the cease-fire agreement, nothing stood between its advancing troops and the Egyptian capital. Israel had gained complete control over the entire front. Facing an imminent threat to Cairo and hence to the regime itself, President Anwar al-Sadat was desperately seeking heightened Soviet intervention and even direct military involvement to secure an early cease-fire. But for intense American pressure, Israel would have annihilated the stranded and encircled Egyptian Third Army. The story was more or less the same in the north where the Syrian advances in the Golan Heights were stopped and reversed and the outskirts of Damascus were brought within range of Israeli artillery. After initial surprises and setbacks, Israel had bounced back, stopped the Arab offensive and reversed the course of battle. If the Arab military offensive was motivated by a desire to change the status quo in Sinai or the Golan Heights, Israel had throttled them. The October 1973 cease-fire lines significantly improved Israel’s position." P.R. Kumaraswamy, Revisiting the Yom Kippur War
• "Although the Egyptians continue to tout the Yom Kippur war as a great victory, in truth, their successes were modest and their failures equal or greater than their achievements," Kenneth Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991
• "In material terms, the Israelis won a clear victory in the Yom Kippur war. Israel never held more territory than it did at the end of the Yom Kippur War – a war it had supposedly lost. At the cease fire, the Israelis were only fifty miles from Cairo and thirty miles from Damascus. The Soviet ambassador to Egypt Aleksei Kosygin saw the situation in Cairo at the end of the war as a 'catastrophe.' He declared: 'We must have a cease-fire because otherwise, everything will collapse,'" Johnson and Tierney, Failing To Win, Perception of Victory and Defeat in International Politics, @ page 177.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Yom Kippur War was cleary not a military stalemate, which all this sources should prove. Thank you for doing this, I support your work. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin to edit this article shortly. I suggest that you put it on your watchlist as I'm certain there will be lots of objections and reverts to my edits. If you agree (or disagree) with the edits, it is important to voice your opinion on the discussion page and to take an active role in the editing process. I look forward to collaborting with you on this project. Best Regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I am looking forward to this. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I saw your recent comment on the Yom Kippur war talk page here and I too share your concern and frustration over the endless reverts by the POV pushers such as this one by RomaC. I have had issues with him in the past in connection with other articles. I have yet to see him add relevant content or make one productive edit. I have only observed him engage in endless reverts of sourced material. In any event, we need to build consensus. Currently, You and I as well as Megaidler (talk) and Joltinjoe56 (talk) favor "Israeli military victory" in the infobox. Sherif, JohnZ and RomaC oppose. The rest seem to be on the sidelines though I believe that Hohum (talk) and Cptnono (talk) seem to be leaning on our side. In fact, Hohum actually reverted Sherif here and restored my sourced edit concerning IDF victory. I think that it is imperative that all edits be sourced. It is also imperative to effectuate substantive edits within the article itself so that the changes reflect and correlate to the result section of the infobox. In any event, don't dispair and don't give up. You've made some excellent edits thus far. I encourage you to continue. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me this and keeping me updated. Does the other guys have more authority in this issue than us? Sometimes I feel like that's how it is. But one can't ignore evidence. Let's keep this issue up, and don't give up. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the course of the war some 8,400 Egyptians and nearly 400 Syrian plus some 20 Iraqis and Moroccans were captured by the IDF. Yet the article makes no mention of it but strangely (and erroneously) notes IDF POWs. However, I have corrected the problem and have included the Egyptian/Syrian POW figures in the info box. Also, the article erroneously states that 500 Israelis were captured when in fact, 293 were captured. I've made the correction and I congratulate you on your excellent edits. Well done! Warmest Regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems like you have a much higher level of knowledge than me on this spot. Thank your very much for all you have done. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to merge List of wars 1900-1944 with List of wars 1945-1989 and add 1990-1999 wars so it cabe List of wars 1900-1999, just like List of wars 1800-1899. Please leave a comment at Talk:List of wars 1945-1989 in support of my plan. B-Machine (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you support my plan, leave a comment at Talk:List of wars 1945–1989 stating your support. B-Machine (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I reformed the list of wars 2003-current article. B-Machine (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Cuba fought alongside Belgium in the Congo Crisis? B-Machine (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know much about the Congo Crisis. The only thing I am sure about, is that Cuba has played a key role in Africa during the 20th century. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikrobolgeovn. You have made many contentious edits to the South Lebanon Conflict article. Because you have not cited reliable sources, and in fact removed reliable sources, replacing their content with counterfactual claims, I have reverted your edits. If you would like to contribute to this article, please be sure you can back up your claims with reliable third-party sources. As you can see, the article in its present form cites more than 22 news and historical sources from all perspectives - but your changes are unsupported by historical fact. For example, in this edit, you changed the outcome of an operation. This edit is counter-factual and is not supported by the numerous sources cited in the article. Please do not disrupt the article in this way. If you have information to add, it must be cited from a reliable, encyclopedic source, consistent with our Wikipedia policy. Nimur (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After briefly reviewing your talk page and your contributions, it seems that you have a history of making counter-factual edits to pages about the conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this way, you may be subject to an edit review, administrative action, or even a block from editing. Nimur (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you understand that I never tried to disrupt Wikipedia. The reason why I removed the sources from the article, was because I thought they were irrelevant (which was obiviously wrong, and I'm sorry). I am trying to contribute, but have made several mistakes. I still don't understand where my edition is counter-factual, so a further explanation of this will of course help me to prevent this in the future. Sorry for making trouble for you guys. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to contribute. These articles in particular are difficult to keep in good shape - because they are easily politicized. For this reason, we need high quality sources. For example, one specific issue which I brought up above was your edit that changed the outcome of the Litani Operation from a military retreat to a military success. Numerous historical sources agree on what actually happened. If you really feel that this is incorrect, the burden of proof is on you to find evidence to support this claim. Similarly, your other edits must also be backed up by reputable, encyclopedic-quality sources. Nimur (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advices. The Litani Operation was not just a military withdrawal; In fact, PLO retired from South Lebanon before IDF retired. Israel made it to clear of the border, and then the UN buffer was established. The article itself tells the entire story, and to me, this seems like a indisputable Israeli success. I did not thought that I needed a source, as the article itself, in my opinion, made this go without saying. Appearently, I was wrong.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Why do you think this is a war?--DAI (Δ) 13:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's just as much as the 2010 Eritrea–Ethiopia border skirmish. I think it that was not a war, but a smaller clash or a conflict. There is many smaller conflicts in the lists.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikrobølgeovn,

This is debatable but not exactly inaccurate. The only quibble I have is that few of the KR bases destroyed remained so; in general they were reoccupied within weeks. Also the KR were not the only group affected--the VN destroyed ANS bases and KPNLF bases too, so it doesn't make much sense to put this in an infobox as a "result".

I don't know what your level of expertise on this topic is, but it would be prudent to edit articles on which you have fairly significant knowledge.

Respectfully, Cmacauley (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I saw you have interest in Israel's history I thought you might be interested in helping me translate these two important articles[1][2] to the Norwegian Wikipedia (they currently only have one article about the middle east conflict). Unfortunately my Norwegian writing skills aren’t good enough to do this by myself (I am much better in speaking Norwegian though). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The first of these articles is included in this article, which describes both the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian. I might though be interested in doing some effort with the second one, so I'll see what I can do. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is part of the Arab–Israeli conflict (which is called in Norwegian "Midtøsten-konflikten"), these conflicts shouldn't be mixed up together into one article in the way they currently are in the Norwegian Wikipedia. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, I am kinda busy with exams at this time of year. I will try to contribute as best as I can. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I have created machine translations of these articles in my sandbox. I hope that you would be able to help me translate them. In fact, take as much time as you need doing so, I will reffrain translating them myself for at least a month. Any help you can give would be highly appriciated. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe you would find the time to help out with the translation/s ? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to, but at this moment I am very busy with exams and that kind of stuff. I'm sorry, but if I were you I would not rely on me. I would of course like to help, but I really don't think I've got the time. I'm sorry.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated the first part of the article now.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your contribution in Phong Nha-Ke Bang. I wish you could continue help me in Vietnamese topics in the near future. I am ready to translate Norway-related topics soon. At present, we are at peace. We have had peace since we ceased Sino-Vietnamese conflicts 1979-1990. Nice to know you.Genghiskhan (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Vietnam participated in both the Thai-Laotian Border War and the 1997 clashes in Cambodia. Although Vietnam itself has been in peace the last years, it's armed forces might still have participated in conflicts in other countries. Do you know if Vietnamese soldiers has been stationed to fight in another country in recent years? With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might answer your question. I hope there's more. You never learn (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made new edits on the article and I'm expecting for answers in the talk page. In the talk page, you may watch the sections dealing with the infobox / belligerents, the infobox / result, the casualties and the aid. I hope we will finally reach a consensus in some issues. This message was sent to many editors. Megaidler (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very busy with work lately and haven't had the time to engage in any productive editing. I took a glance at the Gaza and Yom Kippur War pages and was distressed to see these articles degenerate into pure revisionism. It appears that those who have an interest in furthering an agenda have had their way at the expense of truth and accuracy. It's a damn shame.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, could you check to see whether Vietnam had participated in the Franco-Thai War? And take a look at this source.

Also, from Sep 1945 to Mar 1946, I don't know whether the VNPA had fought alongside the Viet Minh against the British and French forces, could you check this too? You never learn (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is called "Japan alternative history". I've never heard aboat a Thai-Vietnamese war in 1972. It seems like it is actually talking about the Sino-Vietnamese War, and have just mixed some countries and changed the locations and dates. I'm sorry, but I believe that the page you referred to is not reliable.

I am also not sure whether or not the VPNA was the same thing as Viet Minh during the first Indochinese war. I think further research is needed. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Franco-Thai War? According to source that I provide, did Vietnam have participated in that conflict? I have intention to create an article named War in Vietnam (1945-1946) that describe the war from Sep 1945 to Mar 1946 between the British-Indian-French forces against the Viet Minh. Since the VNPA was already formed since 1944, I wonder if it had fought against the British or not.

I also even want to create an article named War in Vietnam (March–December 1946) that decribes the conflict in Vietnam after the British-Indian withdrawal from Vietnam until December 19, when the First Indochina War officially started. You never learn (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam did not exist when the Franco-Thai War was fought. However, it would be very interesting if you created the two articles you mentioned, and I will propably be interested in translating those articles into Norwegian.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe its troops had fought in the war along with the French. You never learn (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French Army might have included Vietnamese soldiers, but that doesn't make the Socialist Republic of Vietnam a combatant in a war that occured before it gained it's independence. In the article, French Indochina is included in the infobox as a combatant. I think that's all what we need.

Wikipedia has too less information about the conflict between the British-Indian forces and Viet Minh. If you would like to start these articles, then I will propably make an effort to get them translated into Norwegian. Respectfully, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interrest in this conflict? There are several different claims to this conflict. Some say that it only refers to the Sino-Vietnamese War. But a lot of other sources say that it includes both the Cambodian-vietnamese and Sino-Vietnamese wars. And other sources claim that it also even include the Sino-Vietnamese and Thai-Vietnamese border conflicts of the 1980s. What do you think?

Currently, the name Third Indochina War is redirected to the Sino-Vietnamese War. In my opinion, I agree with this claim, that the term Third Indochina War should refer to all the conflicts between Vietnam, Cambodia, China, and Thailand, not just the Sino-Vietnamese War. You never learn (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those conflicts belong in the same category - namely, the Third Indochina War. I don't think that they were the same war, but they are highly related to each other. So yes, I support your claim. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Indochina War? Decisive Israeli Victory! (joking, no offense intended) RomaC (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's another debate.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, alright, I admit that was very funny :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody totally messed up the Mau Mau Uprising article. Want to help in fixing it? B-Machine (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to, but I'm on vacation right now and my knowledge on this subject is limited. So I'm sorry, but I can't help right now.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, since it didn't seem like much discussion was going on in the 2006 Lebanon War article I thought it might be best if we discuss it with others rather than let it become an edit war, the ANI page is here[3].My apologies over the lack of proper format--Freepsbane (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for taking care of the issue. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting reading material concerning the second intifada

• The Intifada is over – just listen Zeev Chafetz, 22 July 2004

• winning the counterinsurgency war- The Israeli experience Major-General (res) Yaakov Amidror

• Must Counterinsurgency Wars Fail? EuropeNews 9 September 2008

• The need for decisive victory BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 57, January 12, 2009

• The “Defensive Shield” Operation as a Turning Point in Israel’s National Security Strategy, Dr. Wallace A. Terrill and Lieutenant Colonel Ofek Bouchriss, USAWC Strategy Research Project, U.S. Army War College

Best regards--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot, it's great to hear from you again. I will have a look at it when I've got time. Cheers :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sources support your recent edit concerning IDF tactical victory on Second Intifada. They are all RS. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will propably make another attempt sooner or later, but I don't think it would be a good idea if I try to play solo again, because I don't spend so terribly much time in front of the computer at the moment. Do you know about any other users who agrees? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not solo on this, plus you have RS backing. As long as you comply with WP:BRD and your sources are WP:RS and verifiable per WP:V, (which these are), it shouldn't be a problem.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will propably do something about this, but I am not able to handle the subsequent discussions on my own because I simply don't have time. Is there any other users than me and you who agree and are willing to participate on the discussion page? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but I have already discussed the matter with User:Sean.hoyland (the editor who reverted you)[4] and he is Okay with your edit as long as it's reliably sourced. The reason he reverted you in the first place was because he thought your source was sub par and he was probably correct. But now you have numerous sources that are much more reliable and credible so there should be no problem.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll fix it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have some problems with the sources used and I raised them on the talk page. Thanks, nableezy - 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look but my time is somewhat limited. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether these are reliable sources, you can check: http://www.cam111.com/photonews/2011/02/18/78977.html, http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2011/02/vietnamese-tanks-moving-to-preah-vihear.html, http://khmerization.blogspot.com/2011/02/vietnamese-tanks-on-road-to-preah.html, http://khmernz.blogspot.com/2008/10/thai-tv-was-warned-about-its-coverage.html. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very, very much. I've been looking for something like this for a while. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam officially denies sending troops to the Cambodian-Thai border, and the statements are unconfirmed. However, secrecy is not something new in Indochina. I will follow the development closely from now on. Again, thank you. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam troops went to Cambodia for Thai-Cambodian border temple conflict? No Sir, if that event had occured, we would have read this on many famous international newspapers and the government of Thailand will lodge their protest to the United Nations immediately. Hope to co-operate with you. If you need any help, please contact me. Genghiskhan (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbs didn't capitulate, there are hardly any reliable or verifiable sources to confirm that. Wikipedia is based on verifibility, so please don't use that term. The main article on the Kosovo war also doesn't state in the results section that the Serbs capitulated or even that the war ended in a KLA/NATO victory. There are very few if any at all reliable sources that confirm the bombing as a clear-cut NATO victory. Actualy most politicians and analysts even today when talking about it call it NATO's "victory" with a sarcastic remark on the victory term because the Americans were the only ones who declared it as such. The facts are the war ended with the Kumanovo agreement and the UN resolution 1244. And as such, for the sake of compromise, so there wouldn't be any edit wars I suggested to user Bobrayner that we don't put the NATO or Serb claims of victory at all. We put in the results section the same thing that is in the Kosovo war results section. That the war ended with the Kumanovo agreement and the UN resolution 1244. And All neccesery information is in those two articles so let readers make their own conclusions on who won since, there is no historicly unified oppinion on who won and it is still disputed by both sides even today (and I don't mean just the Serbs and NATO). This way the result is neutral. Since Bobrayner didn't revert my edit since than I assume he doesn't have any problem with that. In the future, if you want to add a result it must be sourced. For now this is the historicly agreed upon result of the war. The war ended in a peace accord. For examples of these kinds of results for wars on Wikipedia see these articles [5][6][7]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here. "On June 3, 1999 Milošević capitulated and accepted peace conditions.[51][52]". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy that is baddly written by the editor who put the sentance there. Because capitulation is not in the sources provided (51,52). What is in the sources is that Milosevic accepted the terms of an international peace plan for Kosovo and that he accepted settlement terms. Not once is capitulation mentioned. Will need to rewritte that sentance so it represents properly what is in the sources. Listen, the way it is now is just fine. The war ended with the Kumanovo agreement and UN resolution 1244. Nobody is stating anybody won. I proposed this, because if we let it stay one side had won, than there would have been more edit wars in the future between other editors. This is neutral wording. EkoGraf (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis, there's a discussion about merging Second Ivorian Civil War into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis. If you want to participate, please do so. B-Machine (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you didn't mean 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis being merged into Second Ivorian Civil War? Anyway, thanks for letting me know. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the discussion on belligerents of the North Yemen Civil War, you are most invited to join the renewed discussion on this issue. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I continued the same thread on Iranian involvement in the war, if you have any idea on Iranian onvolvement pls give an opinion.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hizbollah4.tif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for informing me. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikrobølgeovn. I know you have previously made many contributions to the article Wars involving Israel and therefore I assume that you have a lot of knowledge in this topic as well. I would appreciate any help you can provide in the improvement of this article as well. I now especially want to see this article improved after it has been suggested in the discussion page of the article that it should be deleted. This article was created by me as a prelude to the article Wars involving Israel which contains an outline of the wars involving Israel, and as such I believe that this article too would be of great importance to the users whom would also want to get an outline of the violent conflicts involving the Yishuv which preceded the establishment of the state of Israel. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of wars involving Lebanon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PLA (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) 10:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19770726&id=xKNVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m9kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5023,6244203

And even your source says that both Libya and Egypt had military retreat, so it wasn't a defeat at all. Second thing is, i have added "United States" as supported by in Libyan-Chadian War, just like there is added in other pages like:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Iraq

That's it . Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt retreated after a ceasefire was called, while the Libyan invasion of Egypt was repelled by Egyptian forces. Do you see the difference here? Libya did not voluntarely withdraw from Egypt, but its limited invasion got forcefully pushed back. On the contrary, Egypt withdrew after meditation by Algeria, and did so after the fighting had ceased. The withdrawal can therefore not be attributed to any Libyan resistance, as this ceased before the retreat itself took place.

Furthermore, there was no US military presence in Chad. It might have sent material aid to the French, but this is not by far the same as deploying its own forces on the battlefield. Unless you have a source that clearly proves direct US military intervention on behalf of the French in Chad, it should be removed from the list.

That's the reasons for my edits. Please feel free to address me again if you have any further issues, and have a nice weekend. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libya attacked Egypt, i have read that Egypt were trying to steal oil, although egypt denied it.. But point is that both nations were never going to stop attacking each other. It was the Algeria's president who made both of the nation stop, so they retreated. So you should revert the edit from libyan - eygpt war page too, as it remained such type, for long as well.Clarificationgiven (talk)

As for the United states' role in Chadian war, i think it's enough that i would change 'supported by' to 'aided by', because they played really important role according to there own self admission. Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source I provided (acig.org), it was the Libyans who initiated hostilities by attacking Egyptian border posts. The Egyptians repelled the attack, and when the ceasefire came into effect, the frontline had been moved to the Libyan side of the border. Libya didn't just simply 'withdraw' from Egypt, they got pushed back.

And again - there was absolutely no American military presence in Chad. It would be wrong to include a country which never sent its own troops to fight on the frontline. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the source supplied by you does not say anything about whether it was a voluntarely retreat og an outright defeat, but only states that the ceasefire was in effect. It has nothing to say about the outcome at all, except the fact that it clearly reveals that the frontline had indeed been pushed to the Libyan side of the border: ...a Libyan diplomat in Rome claimed there was fighting Monday in two Libyan oases. Your statement is counterfactual, and should be removed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about 'your source' and 'my source', many sources directly says that libya won the war butwe are adding what it actually was, and only the newspaper is reliable source for it, no body mentions that egypt won except you, but it's not about personal liking. And like in other war pages we have added 'supported by' we should add united states because it helped chad. Clarificationgiven (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention the word "victory" in my last edit. Your source does simply not support your view that the Libyans voluntarely withdrew from Egypt, while my source indeed proves the Libyans got pushed into their own country by military means. This has nothing to do with my personal liking, but is based on established information.

And again - there was absolutely no American combat troops in Chad. The US was not a combatant in this conflict, simply because it wasn't involved with its own troops. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikrobølgeovn. You have new messages at Talk:List of wars involving Egypt.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it "military retreat" in Egypt-Libya's war result because that is what your sources actually confirms as well, End of the story. Clarificationgiven (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sources clearly state that the Libyans got pushed out of Egypt, and my sources as well as your source confirms that the frontline had been pushed to the Libyan side of the frontier when the ceasefire was called. Please read my quotation in my last edit, as well as the newspaper article your provided. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you found such quote which says that frontline was pushed out? Whole article contained no such words, and it's impossible to claim that Egypt won as well. Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countrystudies.org; Mutual suspicion between Sadat and Qadhafi, plus Egyptian charges of Libyan subversion, led to a brief but sharp shooting war along their common frontier in July 1977. Egyptian forces advanced a short distance into Libya before Algerian mediation ended the fighting. (proves the war was ended on the Libyan side of the border)

Acig.com; Quotation here (proves Gaddafi initiated hostilities)

Your reference; ...a Libyan diplomat in Rome claimed there was fighting Monday in two Libyan oases. (confirms that the war ended on the Libyan side)

All this proves that the frontline had indeed been replaced to the Libyan side of the border. This, and the fact that the war was initiated by Libyan forces1, is in my opinion enough to conclude that the Libyans had indeed been militarily defeated - or at least forcibly pushed out of Egypt. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That only speaks, the egyptian army had came into libya's border or area, nothing like there was any end of the war or win/defeat, both of the nation drawn back there forces after the mediation of Algerian president.Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt withdrew after a ceasefire accord which both parties agreed upon, while Libya got forcibly pushed back. The war ended on Libyan territory. Don't you get it? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libya's forces were still fighting, so were egyptians, there's no sign of victory or defeat either, this case is even easier than solving the korean war, to be honest.Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As confirmed by sources, the Libyans attacked and got repulsed, and Egypt subsequently occupied parts of Libya until their eventual withdrawal following the ceasefire. It's obvious to all that this was a clear cut defeat for Gaddafi and his forces. No sources what-so-ever has confirmed or even supported your view, while the real line of events has been repeated again and again by every source, even the one supplied by you. Why do you keep arguing on this? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because any kind of stories can be made regarding the subject, but it doesn't changes that there was no win or defeat, just like the actual information in such pages have been added here.Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a loose statement without further substantiation. By the way; The difference between South Korea and Egypt is that while South Korea repelled the North, they later got repelled themselves by the Chinese intervention. Egypt meanwhile was never pushed back from the parts of Libya which they occupied, and pulled back after a ceasefire was in place. In other words, this cannot be compared with the Korean War. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no victory or loose in that war either, how about sino soviet war from 1969?? So just keep the details "Military retreat" because that's what actual fact is.Clarificationgiven (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. Do you even read what I'm saying? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no independent verification, except for the term military retreat, just keep it as it is. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is. I have repeated this numerous times. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about win or defeat.Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libya was repelled and Egypt prevailed. Isn't it a clear-cut? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of wars involving Cuba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rebel (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) 04:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marada old.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barzani (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) 11:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hezbollah flag.tif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 wars involving South Africa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 38th parallel

List of wars involving South Korea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 38th parallel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th parallel (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) 14:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Indo-Pakistan War of 1965 ended in a cease fire but India was viewed as the victor worldwide and Both sides did not claim victory.

India might very possibly have won. However, you need to address the [talk page of that article] if you want to change the infobox, as whether I agree or disagree with you isn't really of any importance here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Norway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Copenhagen (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) 15:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added Israel to the infobox again without consensus. Can you remove it? I've run out of reverts for the day.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That discussion is just growing more and more ridiculous every day. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mikrobølgeovn, Serbia did sufered air attack, but Croatia did not managed to make Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia and Bosnians did not managed to save its country from Serbians. Again, I am Serbian and according to Dayton accords Republika Srpska is made as autonomus province in use of Perublic of Serbia. There are Serbians who live there and have big rights. I just say that Serbia won that war because of these folowing things: -creation of Republika Srpska, -less casualities than Bosnians, -Serbians as mayority in Bosnia.

I also think that we can work together and I wish to join Wiki project:Serbia. No problem for help and good luck in working! See you next time, Vlada 1912. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlada1912 (talk

2006 Lebanon War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2006 Lebanon War/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Nice work on List of wars involving Iran. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome!!! Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mikrobølgeovn can you help me improve List of wars involving India page since you have done an amazing job on List of wars involving Iran also I want to merge List of wars involving Maratha Empire but I don't know how? Any help would be kind. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help. But I'm not sure how you intend to structure that list. First; Should we include wars and conflicts that was fought when India was under foreign rule, and if yes, then to what extent must India be involved for such conflicts to be included (material aid, volunteers, troops etc.)? Second, we need a clear definition of 'war'. Technically, the Insurgency in Northeast India and in Jammu and Kashmir are not 'wars', but low-intensity conflicts, and I personally would prefer to keep those in the footnote section. What to you think? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I put British India there is because I think it is right since modern India did retain all the history and also the name. And to what extent? Indian troops have to be involved, no volunteers, or material aid. I agree Insurgency in Northeast India and Jammu and Kashmir should just be put in the "See also" category but Operation Blue Star needs to stay since it did involve the military. I hope that answered your questions?, also what are your thoughts about the Chola incident? Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

300 Chinese troops killed? Last time I checked, it was 10 killed, with this site listed among the sources. I find it very hard to believe that last change can be accurate, and I think that had this indeed been considered a war, we wouldn't have talked about the Sino-Indian War anymore. I have given up trying to remove it after a long edit war which I should probably have avoided in the first place.

It must be noted that I am not an expert in neither Indian nor Iranian history, and my guess is that you know far more about Indian history than me. Please don't hesitate to revert me if you feel I'm making a mistake, ok? :)

Regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both have been involved in trying to remove it from the list [8] as you can see but due to one person's view won't let me change it so I just let the baby have his bottle for now. Don't worry I will fix if any mistakes are there but overall you do an amazing job when it comes to the list of wars pages just an outstanding work you have done. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have made some improvements, but you have already done most of the job, and I think you deserve some credit for your work on that article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Owselore. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Yom Kippur War because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Removing unsourced content Reverting vandalism Mikrobølgeovn Please stop your vandalism and copyrights violates Owselore (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yom Kippur War, you may be blocked from editing. Iraq and Jordan were not directly involved in the war please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia Owselore (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...excuse me? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently passed the article The Gaza War, also known as Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) and Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎) as fit for public view/consumption, and yet I see this in the text: '[a]n IDF probe, released on April 22, 2009, stated that a UN vehicle was attacked by Israeli forces because a Palestinian anti-tank squad was being unloaded from the vehicle.' How on earth was such a comment allowed to let stand, considering the seriousness of its very implication? I expect swift action to be taken regarding such a gross misrepresentation toward the highest legislating body in existence, as well as due notice in regard to various issues outlined on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.225.255 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye on Template:scwinfobox and Talk:Syrian civil war#Status of Israel? I fear that another edit war might break out soon. Thanks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to, but I'm currently really busy with midterms and probably won't have time to engage actively in discussions. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For finally reaching an agreement on Talk:Yom Kippur War. Thanks for being patient. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (although I will insist YOU were the patient one) :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i guess i was a bit too rushing in the beginning myself when i wanted to remove several countries and replace them by Arab League. So i'm glad you came up with the solution of simply mentioning combat support. I'm personally satisfied with the outcome and i hope you are as well.

And of course, good luck with your exams! ;) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really am - I -hate- it when infoboxes lists too many "supporters" that didn't really play any significant role (if playing a role at all), and I', glad you brought up the issue. Good luck with your exams too, and I hope we can work together in the future as well :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Ersroitasent (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your high-quality "argument" ("their troops arrived too late") has has already been proven wrong on the same talk page. I advise you to read the old discussion before kicking off a new one. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What proven wrong..... What... they DID Not participate in major combat--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the sources you keep deleting. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should be interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afmatpesr. Regards. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

was not valid. Please see WP:OWNTALK. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disturbing when users delete their warnings and continue edit warring like before, but rules are rules. Thanks for notifying me. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of wars involving Cyprus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving Cyprus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cabinda War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FAC. 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) 09:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources[9][10] ever mentioned any "victory" or "defeat". We have best evidence for a ceasefire but not more than that. Check WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source says Egypt repelled the Libyan invasion of Sallum, an that Egyptian forces were occupying Libyan territory when the war ended. I don't see how it can be disputed that Libya lost militarily, and it shouldn't be hard to find alternative sources. I'm very busy right now, but I'll see if I can look into it later. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This File:Flag of Libya 1972-1977 not correct, conflict started in 1977 and since 1977 changed to another flag please to see other wikies and not start edit war. Best regards--Poti Berik (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the dates. The flag was changed a few months after the war. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then try to change flag in article in the other segments of Wikipedia (french wikipedia, russian wikipedia, ukrainian wikipedia, norwegian wikipedia, german wikipedia and others) but for now do not need to reverting my edit and please refer reliable source. Best regards--Poti Berik (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then the other Wikis are wrong. Besides, Wikipedia can never use itself as a source. Why do you feel so deeply for this anyway? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Because they are all different from this is, and secondly in the Ukrainian Wikipedia is written that the USSR and the United States supported sides. And did not have to reverting my edits it annoys me greatly! Best regards--Poti Berik (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I keep reverting you because you are wrong, and you know it. If the date in the main article is wrong, feel free to change it. And also, Historyguy is a blog, not a reliable source. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you removed several conflicts? Please explain on the talk page and please use edit summaries. Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 14:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because they were either peripheral or irrelevant (for instance, the Continuation War was part of WWII on the Eastern Front). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are well-sourced articles for these conflicts and it seems they should remain unless a consensus is reached on the talk page to remove them. APK whisper in my ear 14:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Continuation War and the Lapland War were part of WWII, 1953 wasn't a war, Laos was non-combat, and Indo-Pakistan was complete bs. I've lost my patience with IP's adding random conflicts and random combatants, and I'm tired of having to explain it every damn time. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Costa Rica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anastasio Somoza. 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) 08:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

I'm sorry, but I really can't see any exceptions for your edit war at List of wars involving Cyprus. While I understand that there is a problematic edit warrior making things a mess, I simply don't see any overt vandalism. If you can show me something mitigating, or pledge to avoid 3RR in cases like this in the future, I'd be happy to unblock. Kuru (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's fine - I know I went too far, and although I stand by what I intended to do (namely, to prevent nationalist propaganda from standing; articles like these are frequent victims of such activities), I realize I should have left the matter to an administrator to handle. I still wonder whether it's worth the time dealing with such users the buerocratic way (as this will inevitably lead to bias/vandalism remaining in the articles until someone else takes care of it), but I have no problem promising to refrain from breaking the 3RR in the future. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mikrobølgeovn has worked on very controversial articles for so many years and he is not a rigid edit warrior, I am supporting an unblock. He can be believed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great response; I'll unblock. I often wonder if it's worth the time as well. Kuru (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very grateful. Cheers! --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikrobølgeovn. There is a problem in the article of Israeli Prime Ministers. I tried to include the last government of Netanyahu, but the format is wrong, because the 34th government appears separated below the picture. I was hoping you could fix it. Thanks.--Averysoda (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Somebody already fixed it.--Averysoda (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please do not just remove content that revolves around my dispute with 1 editor—the history of which you perhaps zero knowledge of. If you go on greysharks talk page history then you will find 2 occassions where he has removed my discussion of the topic without even giving the courtesy of any reply. If you read those then you will find a continuation of the discussion of the article issue and i think a decisive solution.120.18.2.3 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the relevant talk page, as this has been discussed before. Until then, please refrain from further reverts (otherwise you may be reported for edit warring). Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so i pasted the discussion i told you about on the talk page and i dont think it fair if my edit be removed without a convincing reply against my points raised.120.18.18.186 (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one denies that Israel supported the royalists through material aid, but previous consensus deemed this not noteworthy in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue in the discussion was the need for a reliable source, which i have provided. It seems almost ludicrous to claim that it is non-notable when a very simple word search of israel in the article mentions that word a significant number of times.120.18.163.57 (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what I wrote. No one denies Israel supported the royalists, but that's not the issue here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have taken our issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--125.255.33.9 (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added comments to a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard after I had already closed the thread. Maybe the browser that you are using does not show that the thread is closed. If it did, then expanding the thread to add to it is not useful, because the comments will be ignored. If you want to request discussion of the North Yemen Civil War and can frame it as a content dispute, discussion might take place. (The request was closed because the filing party, rightly or wrongly, referred to vandalism.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He did not, the title was referring to the discussion page of the article. The dispute remains unsolved, and I suggest reopening the thread (and rename it if necessary). Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had to resubmit the DR. Please see noticeboard again.--125.255.33.9 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 List of wars involving Oman 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. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain it was a mistake, as I barely changed any of the content. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your current change seems fine. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Serbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doclea. 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) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A user is trying to destroy the reached consensus for the result — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.170.158.75 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert [11] removes lots of constructive contributions.. As for result, A ""Strategic victory"" proclaimed by Hezbollah and cited is just fine...... PS: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim 495656778774 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the infobox alone while the proposed edit is discussed at the talk page - the current version is the result of a long-lasting discussion. On a note, I recommend you mind the 1RR. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know there are sources. I read them. None of them say that Russia is sending troops to fight in Syria.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph says the soldiers seen might be independent contractors, not from the Russian military.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted the reports as more or less official, with the alleged status of the soldiers being merely a speculation. But are you fine with leaving the infobox as it is (alleged Russian involvement) for the time being? I am sure more details will surface in the coming days and weeks. Cheers, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit at AN3. You should accept that admins are not likely to take any definite action against a user based on recent events. The present contents of the article look unusual to me, but your best option is to negotiate on talk pages. There are probably one or more WikiProjects to which this article would be relevant. Try to get outside opinions and consider using WP:DRN. Regarding correct usage of terms like 'victory' and 'defeat' you could ask for help at WT:MILHIST. By the way, just by referring to linked articles you can tell that many wars have been left out. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is not a new issue, and that article has a history of being disrupted by users with clear nationalist agendas. With this particular user being impossible to communicate with (yes, I've made several attempts), he is essentially free to carry on edit warring until he "wins" in the sense that other users grow tired of it. I believe a third-party intervention might be necessary, but I'll give it some time and see if I'll use WP:DRN. Again, thanks for getting back to me. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe that you may be concerned by this report on WP:ANI. Thank you. --GGT (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of wars involving Russia, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be 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 our 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. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You both are edit warring and have violated 3RR, you need to take this issue to talk SantiLak (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the same warning on the other user who is involved's talk page. - SantiLak (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring, I'm removing vandalism. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a content dispute, what they're doing doesn't at all meet the definition of vandalism on WP. - SantiLak (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content dispute - Courtier1978 is intentionally adding wrong information to make a point, hence vandalism. I will keep reverting those edits if they persist, because stating Russia won WWI is simply ludicrous. At the very least, he should address the main article before touching navigation tools (and I've told him this before). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Not Vandalism, as much as it may not belong on WP, it does not qualify for the definition of Vandalism. If you keep reverting the edits you will be blocked, it will happen, you both need to stop, go on the talk page and discuss it. - SantiLak (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That basically means he will get his way. Your decision. I have better things to do than lecturing Courtier1978 on why Russia lost World War I. Let me ask you: If someone (for comparison) insisted on changing the outcome of World War II to "decisive Axis victory" for whatever reason, would you not revert that edit immediately? Are we even supposed to take such behavior seriously? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean he will get his way, go to talk, other editors may contribute to the discussion as well, you may be right, he may be right, i'm not judging the outcome right now, that's what i'm here to do. I'm here to tell you that you need to stop editing the page and if he continues to do it, I will tell him the same, and you also need to go to talk and discuss it. That's how wikipedia works and you're just going to have to live with it, I know your feeling right now and i've felt it in situations before, but you need to stop edit warring and go to discussion. - SantiLak (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By now, it's rather tempting to call it quits and let vandals flood Wikipedia with nonsense as much as they want (with the passive blessing of admins). This is not a case of "you may be right, he may be right" - ANYONE familiar with military history would immediately shoot Courtier1978 down. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a hard time understanding that you don't get to edit war just because you think you're right, you have to discuss it on the page, or resolve it through other avenues available, but not edit warring. Here's a suggestion that might help, post to the WikiProject Military history talk page and ask other editors for their input on the discussion. Just post and ask for their input, not much else especially not a detailed backstory of the whole dispute, if you're right they probably will support your position, it will help resolve this more quickly. - SantiLak (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed your advice. I know you mean well, and I'm sorry your time has been wasted on this, but this whole episode has been a lot more tiring than it had to be. Like I said, this is not a content dispute, and hopefully the intervention of someone from the military history project will show that. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrobølgeovn, this notice is intended to advise you that WP:ARBMAC sanctions are applicable to areas of your recent edits, including Cyprus and List of wars involving Russia. There are a wide range of possible sanctions available. Kindly please remember WP:FIVEPILLARS in your editing. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBMAC is not applicable. Please see my comments at EdJohnston's talkpage. Dr. K. 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from reverting to the previous revision, as the medieval conflicts are included at List of wars involving Serbia in the Middle Ages. The hatnote and introduction clearly states this, in case you did not notice.--Zoupan 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the split, as it was completely unneccessary and was never brought up at the discussion page. Also, it makes the title of the article misleading. Is there no way you would support a re-merger? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the title is already misleading, pointing to wars, the medieval conflicts were of various significance and cannot be put side by side with modern conflicts. Also, one should note that the lists are terribly ambiguous, are these wars involving the [modern] state or wars fought on the territory of modern states throughout time immemorial? I am against mixing Roman-era conflicts and those of modern states, obviously.--Zoupan 21:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why against keeping them in the same article? Surely, Serbia is Serbia, Roman-era or modern? I won't make a big deal about this, but I really don't get what your objection is. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the thing, is "Serbia is Serbia, Roman-era or modern" plausible? The medieval Serbian states included parts of the neighbouring [modern] countries, while neighbouring [modern] countries included parts of what is today Serbia in the Middle Ages. Disambiguate where necessary. Simply put, modern era ≠ prehistory.--Zoupan 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still hold there is enough continuity to stick to one list, both I won't insist. List of wars involving Serbia should probably be renamed then, perhaps figuring out a new title is a good task for you? Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I have corrected your misinformation concerning South Africas military mission in CAR.

While it is true that the president of CAR was toppled, the SANDF mission was not combatant or to save the country from coup. Its mission was non combatant and was to train CAR troops as per MoU agreement. You can only be charged as a loser when your intention of your mission was to fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukwuike (talk • contribs) 11:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded to this at the relevant talk page. There were two SANDF missions in CAR, with one stationed to train CAR troops (as you correctly point out), and one consisting of hundreds of combat troops. The SANDF was clearly around to prop up Bozize, and the sources I've provided make this perfectly clear. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mikrobølgeovn or whatever you call yourself, stop spreading propaganda using other peoples' countries and militaries. I believe that you are not a military man, that's why you would go around spreading propaganda as a result making wikipedia to be uncreadible. Go and and read a book titled "Battle in Bangui, untold stories" by Helmoed Heitman. Heitman took it from the horses mouth and tell it like it is. SANDF was never defeated, CAR troops were. We fought for our survival and we overcame our enermy and we never fought to save Bangui to fall in the arms of insugents. We were told never to fight on the basis of saving Bangui but to protect our training team and ourselves. If you continue with this your behaviour i will have you reported and your account suspended.

Other academic sources argue South Africa was propping up Bozizé. I won't repeat what's already on the talk page. Be willing to discuss and refrain from making threatening remarks, and definitely quit edit warring. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for three weeks for trying to edit war WP:Original Research into the Libyan-Egyptian War article; there's about five reverts from three or four people reverting you in the last ten edits. Your talk page is littered with references to Arbcom sanctions coverage areas, warnings about edit warring, and general violations of WP:Consensus. We operate on mutual agreement, and solid, reliable WP:References on this site, not to lay down 'what is right' or to WP:Rightgreatwrongs. Should you continue this disruptive behaviour, you will eventually find yourself blocked completely. Once your block expires, please consider your actions more carefully, and seek solid, repeated, CONFIRMATION from reliable sources for edits that are questioned by others repeatedly. WP:Milhist is one of the most active projects on the site, and is available to provide third opinions. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in List of Wars involving South Africa, you mentioned the name of a second operation to prop up the president, but no sources I saw. Under WP:BURDEN you need to cite (preferably) multiple sources, and be prepared to defend them point-by-point, not just simply say 'academic sources say...' Buckshot06 (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no original research. Unlike my counterparts, my argument hasn't relied on active denial. There was no consensus nor hoax, I simply backed away from the issue for sometime because I quite frankly grew tired of it. The source I provided perfectly supports what I added, and I -have- been defending them point-by-point. This block is completely uncalled-for.

I'm not going back to a previous, unrelated discussion, and neither will I revisit every single dispute on my talk page (do note, however, that I've only been blocked once; in which case I immediately acknowledged my mistake). I've been editing controversial articles, and many "warnings" on my talk page are from editors who were themselves edit warring. It looks to me like you've spent a lot of time trying to find a reason to block me. This abuse of power gives me little reason to trust your neutrality.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

Contrary to the claims made by the blocking administrator, I never insertet original research or violated any consensus on the given article (and even if I did, under no circumstances does it justify a three-week block). This is a content dispute, and unlike everyone else involved, I have tried to bring sources to the table. Him bringing up "warnings" on my talk page makes me question what exactly I am being blocked for - is this about one incident in particular, or my behavior in general? In either case, this is also the first time I've seen a user get blocked for 'adding' sources. I have contributed for nearly half a decade, and although I am not interested in commenting on the occasional squabbles I have been involved in, I feel completely comfortable with someone going through my editing history. This block is at best completely unreasonable. I am no saint, but neither am I being disruptive. I request the block lifted, and this incident looked into by a third party. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Account has been unblocked by the blocking admin, who has apologised for making a mistake. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A 21-day block for something like this with no prior warning is rather laughable. It also appears that Buckshot06 has been involved in this topic area for quite some time now. He reverted Mikrobølgeovn in this very same dispute,[12] and it was more of a content-related edit than a "purely administrative" interaction (see WP:INVOLVED). With all due respect, Buckshot, I don't think it was your call to make. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. There are two (well, three) issues here. Mikrobølgeovn first attempted to insert 'Egyptian victory' without sources, and was repeatedly reverted (including by me, acting as an administrator after I was referred to the dispute by another user - I am totally sick of infoboxes in general, and try to avoid editing them, because they don't provide enough context, for exactly the kind of hair-splitting issues we are running into here). Contentious issues, and WP in general, *require* sources.

Then s/he went away and got a source (and, I should note, a reasonably good one). Now, my rationale above, and the problem, was adding a outcome without sources, because the outcome of the Libyan-Egyptian war was indeed an Egyptian victory, in addition to return to prewar lines. Then I was referred to the dispute again, and acting too much on my knowledge of this editor's previous actions (as I alluded to above) I acted too hastily. Mikrobølgeovn was in the right here, and my action was unjustified. I will shortly remove the block.

However, my point about this site being a site for WP:CONSENSUS and not a WP:BATTLEGROUND remains. Sourcing is also important. I am yet to see any sources inserted for the reported second South African operation to support Bozize in the CAR. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the change of tone. I am glad I toned down some of my initial remarks before anyone responded to them, and I should have assumed good faith from the start.

The problem with the CAR discussion was that there was no discussion at all - an editor kept removing sources, and refused every attempt by me to initiate a discussion. Once s/he finally opened up for dialogue, a compromise was more or less immediately in place. I don't remember the details that well (though I do remember academic sources specifically claim the SANDF mission was meant to protect Bozize), but this happened months ago and saw the intervention of another administrator, and I was rather shocked that this was part of the reasoning for blocking me this time. I felt it was my behavior in general that came under fire.

I've been rather harsh when dealing with sensitive topics, and I acknowledge I've lost my patience on several occassions. I'd be more than happy to pledge to immediately hand such matters over to administrators in the future, rather than engage in edit wars with other users (ad hoc users and genuine contributors alike). Your userpage states you're willing to be whacked with a wet trout, but it's somehow not that tempting to take advantage of this anymore. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, my RFA states that I am (though I couldn't recall the precise term) an admin open to recall, so that remains an option for any sufficiently concerned about my behaviour. I apologise again; my rationale was baseless. Mentioning the CAR was not even part of the original rationale, merely an example as to how you could improve. Unfortunately, there's no point saying 'academic sources say' unless you can come back within a reasonable period of time and provide citations and/or quotations. If in future you quote and cite immediately you run into contentious territory, you'll be much better off.

I think for you for the future maybe the first point is not to get wound up about infoboxes; they mean less than they're really taken for. They simplify the world too much. Things aren't that cut and dried. Yes, reduce your speed while navigating mine-strewn waters from full ahead flank to about half, and yes, admins are here to help, not punish people if we can avoid it. Please ask us... Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I've just been looking at the war article again and searching the GBooks copy of Cooper et al, where you base your victory citation off. I cannot search the entire book on GBooks, but I've run a search for 'victory' and it does not appear to be used in the section on the Libyan-Egyptian War. Was that precise word used by Cooper and his co-author in that section? If so, can you provide the exact page reference? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He does not use the word 'victory', but describes the war as "disastrous" (p. 21), highlights the unsuccessful raid on Sallum (p. 22), how Egypt achieved its war aim (lower p. 24), and that Gaddafi gave up his goal of hampering the negotiations with Israel after realizing his military was outclassed (p. 25). It's all on page 21-25. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So more generally, should you wish to insert the word 'victory' in an infobox, or anywhere else for that matter, please be doubly sure that that exact word (sometimes maybe 'military victory') is in the source you back your claim with. Faced with opposing arguments, the exact word must be there. Otherwise WP:SYNTH can be claimed. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you were recently erroneously blocked by a careless admin. I, too, suffered a similar issue, being blocked for 30 days only to have the admin lift the block 24 hours later after a second admin pointed out that the first admin had gravely misunderstood something. I have recently started a RfC on amending the WP:REVDEL policy to allow obfuscation of block logs in these cases, if this is something in which you're interested in providing an opinion on. LavaBaron (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly support your proposal, although I believe (as I just wrote on the relevant discussion page) that this will largely be a technical issue. I believe few to none would oppose such a thing. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. However, I still think there should be a separation of some sort between the First Lebanon War which is between 1982-1985 and can even be seen as a victory because the IDF did achieve the goal of removing the PLO from Lebanon, and the South Lebanon Conflict which is between 1985-2000 and can be viewed as a Hezbollah victory as you said. The South Lebanon Conflict is a result not an actual part of the First Lebanon War. Thank you by the way for being more tolerant than other wikiusers. Israelusa123 (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the PLO from Lebanon was just one out of many goals, and only partially succeeded. Israel also intended to help the Phalangists seize power and to sign a peace treaty with Lebanon, which failed due to political rather than military reasons. Although they suffered a defeat in 1982, the real winner of the 1982-85 war was Syria, which expanded its influence in Lebanon at Israel's expense. The IDF faced guerilla attacks from the beginning, and this persisted until May 2000. I don't see how 1982-85 and 1985-2000 are somehow "separate" when one was the low-scale continuation of the other.

As your username gives away some of your personal biases, I might as well give away some of mine. I am comfortable being labeled "pro-Israel" (although it's not a very useful label in my opinion, as I generally dislike dealing in absolutes), and I'm certainly not out to glorify Hezbollah (correctly labeled a terrorist organization by many governments) in any way shape or form. To me, this is military history, not politics. As a private individual I may have my sympaties, but here I'm mainly interested in the military aspect. Thank you for your time. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikrobølgeovn. 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]

Hello, I'm UserDe. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sino-Vietnamese War have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DDDD 07:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, i think it was not an intentional mistake, but it seems you have added Lebanese flag to South Lebanon Army in various infoboxes, which is a clear mistake - the SLA have not used the flag of the Lebanese Republic (they had a somewhat similar, but yet unique flag of the Free Lebanon State) and in fact they were not aligned with the Lebanese military, but rather a separatist organization. Hope you understand my reverts in this regard.GreyShark (dibra) 12:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be so apologetic :) I once saw the Lebanese flag flying next to the Israeli one in a video where Netanyahu visited the security zone in the late 90's. I'm also pretty sure the SLA was only separatist in practice, and at least initially fought for much more than controlling South Lebanon. Believe me, I've been looking for "the" SLA flag for ages, but I keep falling back to the same conclusion. Regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Edguy 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 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. O1lI0 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just mean to thank you for following BOLD, revert, discuss cycle on Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice of you, thanks! :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, the recently updated the Iraqi civil war map after Rawa's capture shows an area near an apparent Tarifaoa border crossing along with Nineveh-Anbar provincial border under ISIL control. This border crossing, also shown under ISIL control, actually I can't find any reliable source for its existence. I tried looking everywhere. As I couldn't I had to remove it from the detailed map module. I would request you to try to remove it from the map.

However, ISIS still has a presence in western desert of Iraq. According, to Iraqi officials these areas are not inhabited (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraqi-forces-retake-last-town-under-isis-control/2017/11/17/f78af80a-cb84-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.780e4e7c2537). Regardless even if wrong, it is clear this desert area does not seem to have any significant settlement anyway. There doesn't seem to be anything really much to control. I think it would be better if a disputed ara color is given to the desert area, but it is your prerogative. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikrobølgeovn. 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]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't, hence why I added the source below the actual peak. swedishcharts.com does not update at the exact time Sverigetopplistan's original site does. In future, don't remove sources until the header source updates with the peak. You're then leaving the new peak unsourced. This is against WP:Verifability. Ss112 17:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider the Winter War, the Continuation War, and the Lapland War to be part of WWII? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.26.46 (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. If this is about the List of wars involving Finland article, I think the current solution (footnotes) are the best solution. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please restore your incorrect removals of Iceland and the Czech Republic. You have removed them from a list of Nato-countries supporting the campaign. It was not a list of countries actively involved in the bombing campaign. The Banner talk 15:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are meant for combatants, Iceland and Czechia weren't combatants. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nato as such was a combatant... The Banner talk 18:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make every single member state a combatant. For example, Germany didn't participate in the bombing of Libya. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why is stated (and backed up by the source that you demolished) that they supported the Nato in their efforts. The Banner talk 20:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-combat involvement should not be confused with actual belligerence. In its previous state, the article made it seem like Iceland and Czechia took part in the bombing campaign. Feel free to add a non-combat aid list below the actual belligerents, this is a common way to work around this. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did not state that Iceland and the Czech Republic were actively involved in the bombing campaign. It stated (and the sources did the same) that they supported the Nato in their campaign, not that they were sending out bombers. Claiming that listing them in the infobox is the same as taking part in the bombing campaign is just your own conclusion. The Banner talk 01:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless specifically stated otherwise, military infoboxes are for combatants only. Significant non-combat involvement must be listed as such. Look at the Korean War article infobox for an idea. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proof? As in: show the guideline/policy and the community (not a local/project-based) discussion where this is decided. The Banner talk 11:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look here. Again stressing I'm not opposed to having Iceland and Czechia in the infobox, provided they are not presented as belligerents. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The template actually confirms my stance that the two countries belong to the infobox as they are part o an alliance. The Banner talk 19:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says that making it just NATO (as opposed to a long list of countries) is also acceptable. Note that it consistently says combatant - heck, even the template itself says 'combatant'. Iceland and Czechia were not combatants. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should probably be on talk, but I agree with Mikrobølgeovn that it makes no sense to simply list all NATO members as 'combatants' regardless of whether they took any active part. The source used does not support some countries as having been involved and some countries (Czech R?) contribution was limited to offering medical aid to the operation. There is no reason NOT to include in the text that all NATO members gave (in some cases limited) political support, but it creates a false impression to list non-participants in the infobox as combatants. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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. 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.

--Mhhossein ^talk 10:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You've already violated this remedy (see [13] and [14]) and please be more careful in future. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute that has erupted on the List of wars involving the United States page regarding the inclusion criteria which could have ramifications over all the List of Wars involving (insert country) pages. An editor has attempted to argue that the inclusion critera for these pages should encompass all conflicts in which a country had any sort of involvement at all, even if it did not engage in combat operations or deploy troops. As you have created many of the existing pages in the relevant category, your opinion on the issue would be most welcome.XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is a misrepresentation of what I have argued. As I have pointed out there are not only strictly operational aspects tied to war and military conflict, but also political and social aspects, both regarding what constitute involvement and how to assess outcome and results of events. A view that is in no way uniquely mine, but supported by a vast scholarship on military history. I strongly advise both XavierGreen and Mikrobølgeovn to study main article Military history, and section related to historiography and relavant sources (Black, 2004; Grimsley, 1996; Kimball, 1984). I would also advise to refrain from disruptive behaviour and in stead engage more productively. Providing sources would be a good place to start. JonHaaka (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Escape from the Shadow Garden – Live 2014, Mikrobølgeovn!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your new article on the album "Escape from the Shadow Garden – Live 2014".

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikrobølgeovn. 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]

Hello, I'm FlightTime. Please refrain from making timeline changes as you did on Queensrÿche, changes to timelines require establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Your changes have been removed and archived in the page history for now.

If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you,

- FlightTime (open channel) 15:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a mistake. There's no rule forbidding users from changing timelines without first opening a discussion thread, especially when no information is changed. The edit you reverted was a minor fix. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice and sympathy Takinginterest01 (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution is to wait a couple days to let the RFC run its course, and then ask an admin to close it in favor of Iraq being listed as a belligerent in the infobox, since that's what the consensus is at the RFC (at least at the moment)XavierGreen (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierGreen: Thanks. I’m not particularly good at dealing with this sort of thing. If more users had been actively involved, he wouldn’t get to keep the infobox hostage thanks to the 1RR. I trust that an admin will sort this out eventually, but it annoys me that one user gets to filibuster like this. But thanks again - it’ll end well either way. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, it certainly can be frustrating, but from my own experience following the dispute resolution chain strictly is usually the best course.XavierGreen (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks - it's a useful reminder. I'm too quick to lose my patience with this sort of thing, and it really is my downfall sometimes. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jim7049 (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your efforts in keeping the Anglophone Crisis topic up to date. Koopinator (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koopinator: Thank you very much :) You're doing a terrific job on wars in the Greater Middle East! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikrobølgeovn,

Thanks for creating Vipers (Ambazonian militia)! I edit here too, under the username Doomsdayer520 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Thank you for your new article on the Vipers of Ambazonia. I recommend adding text to the article on anything that has been reported about them in the news, now or in the near future.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm curious why do you use File:Flag of Indonesia (Pantone).svg at List of wars involving Australia rather than File:Flag of Indonesia.svg. Thanks. Hddty. (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I did it because neon flags look weird next to pantone ones. This is not uncommon practice; you'll see the same thing being done to File:Flag of Switzerland.svg all over the place. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the neon color flag is weird? Hddty. (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird because it's inconsistent with other flags, and because no flags actually look like that in real life. That being said, the edit I reverted was on one of my sandbox pages, not the actual article :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, based on Flag_of_Switzerland#Colours, they have a pantone flag because the color has actually been used in the first place in a guideline/specifications (see the lengthy discussion at c:File_talk:Flag_of_Switzerland.svg because the color used in the flag was not defined by law prior to 2017). The Indonesian law only specify the color red as RGB 255-0-0 and white as RGB 255-255-255, there is no other specification in Pantone/CMYK/whatever. Red color used here is from SKopp/Sebastian Koppehel who uploaded the flag first (see c:File talk:Flag of Indonesia.svg).

Can you explain why there is "no flags actually look like that in real life"? Hddty. (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications that border neon colors are oftentimes converted into pantone by uploaders. That said, does it really matter? We're talking about a sandbox page. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This file would not be deleted (currently nominated by myself) if it is being used, even in sandbox page. Hddty. (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want it deleted? There are plenty of similar examples out there. Pantone flags (main or alternative) are in place pretty much everywhere except in the case of Indonesia. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because c:Commons:Deletion_policy#Not_educationally_useful. I would not do the same thing for File:Flag of Switzerland (Pantone).svg because the flag is in a a guideline/specifications before and can be used at Flag_of_Switzerland#Colours. Hddty. (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your point. I just want to advise you to wait some time and not to revert Takinginterest01. Wait for their respond in the talk page, if they didn't respond we have other options to resolve this dispute. Takinginterest01 doesn't seem to know anything about the article content as you can see from talk:2019 Persian Gulf crisis#Suspected and there are a lot more mistakes in their edits.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: Thanks, point taken. Let's hope this gets solved soon, as that article should see quite some traffic nowadays. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just had a quick look at the nomination, but feel there are a coupl eof things that you might need to address before it gets looked at for GA

The criteria include list incorporation, the two styles being bulleted/boxed and as prose:

• Does that section "Within Cameroon" need to be bulleted? It almost reads as paragraphs as it is?

Also there are a couple of other things you might want to address:

• The "Countries and international organizations" section should at least have a summary of the article it is linked to - perhaps mentioning whether it was condemned/approved and the current status of any actions imposed/needs met by outside parties - perhaps use a synopsis of the lead/lede from the list article?

• Single sentence paragraphs - there are a few

• Starting sentences with a date - if there are a lot of them in a paragraph, or in succession, it starts to look like a list crammed into a paragraph instead of prose

I am busy this weekend, but if it is still not assessed when I get back next week I'd be glad to assess it - It's very interesting reading :) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaosdruid: Thanks for the feedback! Totally agree regarding the first two points, I will get around and take care of it as soon as I have time. Regarding the third point, big parts of those sections are actually lists crammed into paragraphs; these sections used to be timelines, until I moved them to separate articles and rewrote them into summaries. I will set aside some time to improve the prose and throw in some more variations. I'm not sure if I'll have time to get everything done this weekend, but I can let you know when I feel that sufficient improvements have been made. Cheers! :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 1.20.99.89 (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the article 2019 Tell Rifaat clashes you have been constantly edit warring to favor your point of opinion even though it has been discussed against your opinion in the talk page. Please stop this behavior on your future edits. 202.152.38.75 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 202.152.38.75 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anglophone Crisis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Anglophone Crisis you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Anglophone Crisis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your outstanding work on articles related to the Anglophone Crisis! I know how difficult it can be to write about Africa-related topics due to the often problematic sources and general underrepresentation in Western-focused news as well as academia. I hope you will continue your good work in the future! Applodion (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Applodion: Thanks, I really appreciate both the compliment and the very relatable situation that you mentioned :) I was going to say the same about your work with the Uganda–Tanzania War, but then I vaguely recalled complimenting you for this at some point in the past -- so I checked your talkpage, and yup, the barnstar from March is still there. Not that a well-deserved compliment can't be repeated!! Cheers :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, due to your interest in Middle Eastern history, you are welcome to contribute to the newly created 1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyshark09: Thanks for notifying me! Definitely checking it out. Cheers! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International reactions to the Anglophone Crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabinda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with this, I'm not going to re-close an already closed discussion, Your comment has been noted however no further discussions need to take place,
If you have a problem with me moving the abot template down then by all means drag me to ANI however until that happens yours and the IPs comments can stay within the closed box.
Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I'm done with the discussion, but I don't want the chronology to be misrepresented. I specifically wrote that comment after the discussion was closed, and I was addressing anyone who might hit the archives in the future. No one really compares time stamps, so currently it looks like I left it before you closed the discussion. It's bad manners to mess with other editors' comments. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another close mainly because edit warring over it is ridiculous, Looks ridiculous but hey ho.

As stated above I wasn't messing about with your comments - I simply moved the close-bottom down. –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Fair enough, I guess I should have refrained from accusing you of intentionally trying to create a false impression. If I could go back, I would merely have stated that it came off that way to me. I'm done hanging around at that talk page, and while I'm not happy about the process, I hope we can be on good terms if we're involved in a different discussion in the future. I will certainly make an effort to be friendlier next time. Best, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Seal of Ambazonia.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. 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.

Cabayi (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have previously shown interest in affilitrated articles, I wonder whether you could provide your input here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Genocide_Watch:_Unreliable_source? Best wishes, Armatura (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you take a look at this edit request?--Watchlonly (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your ongoing work to keep Anglophone Crisis up to date! Indy beetle (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Thank you very much! You've made some outstanding contributions on African history yourself. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Egypt, can I talk to you for a while Long live Egypt (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a video with an Israeli commander’s confession about the Battle of Al-Khadra Island, which is completely different from the Israeli sources. He admitted their loss of Al-Fatihah in the fighters, and that the goal was to occupy the island. I want you to see it Long live Egypt (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 20:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarabnas: Done. Good luck with your dissertation! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thank you! Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 17:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2021), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bafut.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline Israeli PM Horizontal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Flag of Vietnam2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Incorrect colours and redundant to c:File:Flag of Vietnam.svg

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you can only make an argument that the Arbegnoch movement in Ethiopia were involved in the end of the war, when the minster of defence of Ethiopia, Mulugeta Yeggazu, called the people of Ethiopia to start a guerrilla warfare against the Italian army. Tamart0290 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikrobølgeovn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cross border incidents in the Anglophone Crisis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikrobølgeovn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Cross border incidents in the Anglophone Crisis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mikrobølgeovn. Every editor to make substantive contributions to 2023 Khan Yunis raid, other than you, is not extendedconfirmed, and thus has edited it in violation of the restriction in place for the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. So your edits are the only thing keeping it from summary deletion. Do you think it should be deleted? I could also move it to draftspace. Or I could just extendedconfirmed-protect it. Up to you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Go right ahead and delete it. In its current shape, it's little more than a recycling of Hamas propaganda. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gone, thanks. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 21:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 1rr violation. Please self revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, don't bother. The other editor also broke 1RR, and there's no reason to ask you to revert and then ask them to revert. In the future please pay closer attention to your reverts, and be mindful that the entire WP:ARBPIA area is under 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, hope you are doing well. Anyway, I was just researching the Manyu Tigers who have recently committed a massacre which you already included in the timeline. In the process, I saw that this book assumed that the Manyu Tigers and Tigers of Ambazonia are the same group. Do you think that this is a valid conclusion? Both certainly operate in the same areas, but there have been many name-based misidentifications in the past. Applodion (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nevermind, Martin Achuo, leader of the Tigers of Ambazonia, is also mentioned as head of the Manyu Tigers by several sources. They are the same group. Applodion (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Applodion: Great work! You're a champion at keeping track of these groups and their various names. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thank you for the kind words! Applodion (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir how you doing? Sorry to disturb you but I need your help in the discussion of the page "Shuja'iyya Ambush" because I think it's a bit weird and maybe a bit biased that someone made a whole page of a single ambush where 9 IDF soldiers were killed and declare it as a Hamas Victory and not making page about the battle of Shuja'iyya. My suggestion is to create a page about the battle of Shuja'iyya and add the Ambush as one of the events or descriptions. Also I have a suspicion that the intention weren't to actually educate someone but more to maybe increase the moral of you know who.. Please tell me what you think and look at the discussion. רונלד15 (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You violated 1RR multiple times at Juhor ad-Dik ambush. If this happens again you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I was unfamiliar with the policies for nominating an article for deletion. I did not know that a PROD could simply be removed, or that there was a difference between adding a template or nominating it for AFD. In other words, the way I saw it at the time, other users were simply de-nominating the article because they wanted to. I left a "Thank you" to the user who made me aware of the proper course of action in his edit summary. In short - this was a misunderstanding, and I should have done my homework properly. You don't need to worry about (further) 1RR violations on my part. Cheers, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]