if u will show me when it Georgia produces UAV2 or cuadrocopter i will cut my head off. just show me? it is ur dreams and dont put it in Georgian land forces or show source where is prove that such thing is really exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.210.231 (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TheMightyGeneral, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
გაუმარჯოს. შემთხვევით ინგლისურად SVG რუკებს ხომ არ აკეთებ? ან ხომ არ იცი ვინმე აკეთებდეს რომელიმე ან ქართველი ან უცხოელი? დიაოხის და სხვა ქართული სამეფოების რუკები მჭირდება კარგი ხარისხით. მადლობა. --Georgianჯორჯაძე19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Non-US battlefield UAVs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TAM (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.
Hi. When you recently edited Georgian Land Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M75 (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Byzantine–Georgian wars, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Trapezus, Kldekari and Bardas Phocas (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Nadiradze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gori (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vladimir Chelomey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viktor Nikolaevich Leselidze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timur Apakidze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgian (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgian military ranks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (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.
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Special Forces Brigade (Georgia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War in Abkhazia. 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.
Hi, the Mighty. I was just wondering if you could add some new info about the current structure of the Georgian Land Forces, i.e., the Eastern and Western Commands. Also, do we know who are the current commanders in charge of these? Cheers, --KoberTalk13:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you really getting these sources from? There is no mention of: Georgian National Guard, Sioni, Cholokashvili, Katharinenfeld, Makashvili, Sadakhlo, Ayrum, Tsulukidze, Privolnoye, Korolkov, Troitskoe, Lamballo, and the numbers 100, 200, 560, 600, 4,000, 6,000, 6,500 on the Andersen or Lang sources. It seems you are either making this up or getting your information from some Georgian language cite and claiming it's from academics. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't "quick research" on that article so you have to actualy read it, preferably download to make it easier for oneself as I did.
To the figures found in the section "Escalation of the Conflict: Uprising in Lori and Armenian Offensive "
Pages 26 - 45
Page 27
"....Thus the Georgian forces in Sanain-Alaverdi area found themselves in a very difficult situation. The first group consisting of the Sanain detachment of the Provincial Battalion (60 infantrymen) and an armoured train with the team – blocked in the village of Sanain. The second group - three companies of the 5th Infantry Regiment, one company of the 6th Infantry Regiment, an artillery battery, two mortar platoons and the second armoured train (about 600 men, in total) took defensive positions in Alaverdi, at the bottom of the Debed (Borchala) River gorge surrounded by overwhelming numbers of Armenian troops that included the 4th and the 6th regiments of the 2nd Armenian Rifle Division, battalions of the 1st Regiment of the 1st Armenian Rifle Division, three squadrons of the Mounted Brigade and unites of local Armenian militia (at least 4.000 men altogether plus 20 artillery pieces)46. On December 14 facing the above situation Tsulukidze ordered evacuation of both Sanain and Alaverdi and break through enemy lines towards Sadakhlo station. ...." with ref
Pages 27 - 28
"...In the county of Akhalkalaki the situation was radically different from Lori, largely because the local Armenian population did not seem to object to being under Georgian jurisdiction, and refrained from rebelling against Georgian troops. Also ethnic Russian Dukhobors who inhabited the southern part of the disputed county, were not only loyal to the Georgian government, but preferred Georgian adminstration to the Armenian one49. One could also assume that the county enjoyed relative stability due to the presence of quite significant Georgian forces (more than 6 000 men) under command of General Ilia Makashvili (Makaev)..."
Pages 28 - 29
"...Meanwhile, the new Armenian offensive began in the eastern zone of the conflict. In the early morning of December 14, the units of the 4th, 5th and 6th Armenian Regiments under the command of Colonels Levon Ter-Nikogosov, Nesterovsky and Korolkov, advanced in three columns towards the line Vorontsovka – Privolnoye – Opreti - Ayrum. The total strength of attacking force, including reserves, was about 6000 infantry and 640 cavalry with 26 machine-guns and 7 mountain guns, not including several thousand armed rebels..."
Note:I actualy gave a slightly lower figure there.
Page 29
"...By that time Armenian left flank under the command of Ter-Nikogosov advanced in the direction of BolnisKhachen and Ekaterinenfeld (Ekaterinovka), and on the right flank the troops of Korolkov by a surprise maneuver took over the Ayrum station. As a result of the two-day long Ayrum operation, Georgian units of the 5th and 6th Regiments almost miraculously managed to escape from the encirclement, losing more than 500 men killed, wounded and taken prisoner and leaving behind 25 machine guns and 2 cannons54...."
Note I took that number initialy, but then replaced it with Hovannian's figure of 560 killed, wounded and taken prisoner.
The other numbers 100, 200 I don't know on which you are exactly referring to because there are several such figures in both Andersen's and Hovannian's material. Troop numbers and casualties.
For troop numbers for instance, there is:
Page 29
"...On December 18, the forces of Tsulukidze (about 200 men strong, not including sick and wounded) entrenched in the foothills around the village and station of Sadakhlo..."
Hovannian in his book for instance states that the Armenian's lost about 200 men when the Georgians repulsed the Armenian army from Shulaveri for instance and 100 men in an earlier engagement.
Btw, you reverted the edit allready anyway without waiting for anyone to reply which is not appreciated, not that your edit is valid anyway. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said cite Lang's book, not an article that anyone could write. Also I checked those pages, and Andersen himself does not cite any books for most of this information. --Oatitonimly (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope you didn't. Nice try. You asked exactly for the figures I stated to have taken from Andersen and I cited the figures from Andersen. Regarding Lang, read the excert from his book. I used that one mainly to support both Hovannian's and Andersen's work which both state exactly when and where the conflict ended. So again, no valid arguiments and excuses to what I now consider vandalism from your side. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cited an entire book. Those are core information about the conflict events from both an article written by Andersen and a book written by Hovannian although I used Andersen as base because it's a more neutral source. You are not helping yourself. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting " Georgian National Guard, Sioni, Cholokashvili, Katharinenfeld, Makashvili, Sadakhlo, Ayrum, Tsulukidze, Privolnoye, Korolkov, Troitskoe, Lamballo" from? These are in neither the Andersen nor Lang sources. --Oatitonimly (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can read right .... ? I just cited all the numbers from Andresen's article a few lines above with the exact page numbers. Those are information from Andersen's article. Again, read the article or stop bothering. I have allready written on which pages you find the numbers. In the exact pages 26 - 45 you find the information on those locations and persons. The only thing you need is to read the article. I suspect you're either blatantly lying or tried to use the search function ( strg+F - which doesn't work on that site - hence you should download it maybe as I did .... ) You are really not helping your cause right now, especialy when not providing a single valid argument to why you are reverting and deleting sourced material. You also completly ignore the argument to why I edited that section. The sources I provide besides Andersen are Lang and Hovannian. I'd say more than reliable. Now please refrain from further deleting sourced content.
Btw why would you give "was indecicive" as reason to revert my edit ? nobody argues the fact that it was indecicive. In fact the reason I edited is exactly to point that out. Because otehrwise it seemed like a full fledged Armenian victory which it a ) wasn't and b ) also didn't stop 30km away from Tbilisi, but in Sadakhlo near the nowdays Armenian border, when the Gerogians pushed the Armenians out of Shulaveri wich itself was as far as 60km away from the capital allready.
I think you are both missing a more important point. The "By December 25 they had reached positions 30 miles from Tbilisi before being defeated by the Georgian army at Shulaveri" wording of the content falsely suggests that there was an actual campaign plan by Armenia to capture Tbilisi, and that Armenian forces were advancing to do this until they were halted by a defeat at Shulaveri. The sources do not say such a thing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the primary goal of the Armenians at least but the source states that it was considered as an option by them, if certain demands were not met ( like the transfer of Akhalkalaki to Armenia ). It was also regarded an immediate threat by the Georgians, especialy since there were issues mobilising a force outside of Akhalkalaki strong enough to at least prevent any further advance and eventualy counteract, which consequently did happen. I am definitly open to a more neutral and less misleading text/edit here but I do not see an issue with my edit regarding that though. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: so I made what I think is a more clarifying and less misleading edit that both sides can agree on. I'd welcome a reply from Oatitonimly as well and hope it settles this dispute here. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I don't care what you do to the war article for now because it's a stub anyway, but would you please remove your edits on the republic? You clutter too much confusing information into what is just supposed to be a short description. Shulaveri wasn't even the last major confrontation nor did it define the current borders. Also Tiflis was the correct spelling until 1930. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the only one editing that article and fine I've replaced the "decicive ( despite the fact it actualy was one - but arguable not the - and despite the fact it clearly states that the fighting went on near the nowdays Armenian border ) with "a major" battle. I won't revert it because it is a short description truer to the events. Reverting it leads us back to the initial version which is misleading and doesn't give you a brief picture about how things actualy went down, rather implying that the war only stopped when the Armenian Army was 30km away from Tbilisi, which is not true. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an accurate description at all. Georgia did not "score a few gains", the war never took place in the Armenian Republic. I merely said the war's extent was that distance to Tiflis. You however are distorting and nitpicking sources to imply the Armenia was sent back by some non-existing Georgian decisive victory, when in fact it was solely British threats. Anyone who reads this will have the impression Georgians pushed that Armenians out, which is a lie. --Oatitonimly (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About the "gains". It has nothing to do with the "land gains in Armenian Republic" I merely take from Hovannisian's style of writing, basicaly meant successes, while he describes them as gains in general.
About Shulaveri. There is no "non-existing" anything. You have it clearly stated in three different works. While Andersen describes it more in detail and you may call it POV, dubious or whatever, I think you will find it hard to discard Hovannisian, as he also acknowledges the fact that the Shulaveri operation was a decicive one for the Georgians, pushing the Armenians out of the area, not just Shulaveri and 2 days later almost beyond Sadakhlo. I'll quote.
From Hovannisian's The Republic of Armenia: The first year, 1918-1919 p.118:
"...On the twenty-eight, however, General Mazniev ordered a 3,500-man battle group to a full-scale attack and by nightfall had retrieved Shulaver and several smaller villages and had inflicted nearly two hundred casualties upon the Armenians. At long last Georgia tasted victory. For the next two days there ensured a brisk contest for control of the village of Sadakhlu. The village changed hands several times untill at last the Armenians entranched themselves at the station and the Georgians in the town...."
The closest the Armenians came to Tbilisi was Belyi-Kliuch - nowdays known as Tetritsqaro, 30km away from Tbilisi. Hovannisian states that the Armenian offensive had reached it's climax at that point, on December 24. The Georgian's first offensive took place around that area enclosing Katharingenfeld ( nowdays known as Bolnisi ) pushing out Armenian pockets, read Andersen more detailed description on that. The first major battle during the Georgian counteroffensive was in and around Shulaveri, as also described by Hovannisian and Andersen and briefly mentioned by Lang. You are still denying that and I don't get how. Nobody said anything about a "decicive victory" or "major victory". The Georgians won a "major / decicive battle" - which it was, arguably the largest engagement in that war, as it was also not limited to Shulaveri but the villages around it. Both armies ( the first time the Georgians had amassed what you'd call an army or as Hovannisian puts it: army-group ) clashed in that area. Then they finaly clashed at Sadakhlo.
What kind of victory it was is debatable but it was a decicive battle. The Armenian army got repulsed from that area and had to regroup and also failed to take Sadakhlo a few days later.
Again no. The Armenians stopped because both sides signed a truce which was in effect not earlier than 1 January 1919 and in fact the Georgians were far more dissatisfied and dissaproving with the British peace conditions. Just stating that the Armenian army stood 30km from Tbilisi and that's where the war practicaly and solely due to British "threats" (what "threats" are you even referring to .... ?? - the only threat the Armenians received was from the Georgian delegation amidst the peace talks) ended is a lie. In fact it was rather Georgia that saw itself threatened by the British, especialy with the establishment of British controlled neutral zones.
I also clearly stated the military clashes ultimately resulted in a stalemate at Sadakhlo, not that the Georgian's pushed the Armenians back to Yerevan (eventhough the Georgians liked to claim they would have pushed towards Yerevan if it wasn't for the peace talks according to Hovannisian .... The Armenian army only withdrew after a British peacekeeping contingent arrived in Sadakhlo. While the Georgian army withdrew earlier. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State Security Service (Georgia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. 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.
Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TheMightyGeneral. 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.
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
French Mica,Crotale SAMs and Ground Master radars are confirmed to have been bought by Georgia and i provided at least 10 different sources for that, SIPRI also confirmes that, why you keep deleting them from Georgian Armed forces Equipment page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZUKAGRAD (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings!
so you seem to be pretty into GAF history and equipment, so could you look up this article - [[1]] and remove some information you think is false or add some more? article it self is not done yet, im looking forward to add former aircraft and radar systems. ZUKAGRAD (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @ZUKAGRAD: !
looks good so far, look forward to the finished article. One thing I would definitly add is maybe the time period, like 1991 to 2001 or a date in which there were dramatic changes. Like until reforms, the acquirement of T-72 fleet, it's modernization etc. It seems there were lots of different and crazy weapons in the Georgian arsenal back in the 1990s, I even remember to have seen a photo with a combatant / soldier carying a scoped M16 rifle. But maybe that was internal forces. Omega unit for instance used MP5 in 1993. Maybe the military also had H&K weapons. To be honest, I wasn't really into that period yet. I will find the time and help you as much as I can Zukagrad.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colchis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Seriously, it's trivia. It's not even written in proper English, and I don't think anyone could possibly prove that this is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smooth. How about not trying to put people in place with warnings acting like an admin and instead analyse the entire situation and see if the other party is right in its doings .... ? TheMightyGeneral (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may not edit-war to establish your preferred version, and if multiple editors are telling you that there is a policy-based problem with your edits, it is probably because there's a policy-based problem with your edits. If you had not made that last revert, you would probably not have been blocked. Acroterion(talk)02:09, 2 November 2017 (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).
I have been temporarily blocked on 2 November 2017 for 48 hours by Acroterion because of an edit dispute with the users Harizotoh9 and Drmies over a section ([2]) in the article Colchis. While my edit was sourced with primary and secondary sources - Drmies argument being that those are not reliable as they are work of fiction (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) or in 'poor English' doesn't hold ground when it is about 'media and popular culture' which includes fictional media such as novels and films and the sources are the content of respective media. The argument 'unreliable source due to fiction' is not valid when said section was supposed to be about fictional media with respective fictional source and not historical content. My reverts of the deletion got reverted in turn almost momentarily without any talk, discussion or understandable reasoning. Instead user Drmies puts a warring warning block in my talk page. I responded to Drmies stating my view to which he only replied with "Bullshit. See you at WP:ANEW. Drmies". The next thing I know is user Harizotoh9 again deleting the section to which I again responded with a revert and that Acroterion blocked me with the argument "You may not edit-war to establish your preferred version, and if multiple editors are telling you that there is a policy-based problem with your edits, it is probably because there's a policy-based problem with your edits.." Maybe there is none and they are wrong. The admins here may see things from my POV as well please and not just that of one party because that is clearly what has been done. I didn't even have a chance to reply to the warring post. The way I am being treated seems more punitive to press through a certain agenda, POV or opinion of others rather than anything productive, which is against the wiki general and blocking guidelines. Users Drmies and Harizotoh9 have succeeded with what I thought would not be tolerated here. I will not further edit that article for a time but I will certainly make a complaint about that behaviour ( people don't magicaly turn from all upset "...Bullshit...' to all calm and saint and also have backup from 2 other users within seconds, one being an admin ) and also I request that some admins neutral to this issue consider my work on that article and give it some tought because having these things included doesn't turn wiki into a wikia .... People should not be punished just because users of the dispute demand someone to be put in place. If there are truly valid reasons to delete an entire article, segment or even a single phrase than why not open a talk thread first before deleting it twice, thrice and then asking an admin to block the one who reverts deletion instead - who suddenly turns up and blocks the user just seconds later without a discussion or alike. Sorry whatever the motive, and I may be a bit emotional and biased here due to what transpired but I don't take that as granted and don't understand how this is tolerated. Sadly I've observed this arbitrariness on various other articles and issues and hope that before anything else, people will change accordingly or alternatively that it's adressed by other admins. But as I said, I may be a bit upset right now but it doesn't change my standing or the subject and also I gave my word. So I request this block and the entire issue to be reviewed and also be seen from my perspective too. I also request an immediate unblock. I am dissapointed and will stay away from the article for now anyway. I would still like others to review it though. If not, thank you anyway for listening. I am neither your enemy nor of wikipedia TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still request an admin neutral to the entire issue to review it due to the way a user is treated in this particular type of dispute, which seems threatful and punitive and franky a clear abuse of admin privileges, not including the current technical block according to WP:3RR. Thank you for reviewing my unblock request anyway. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2017 (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.
Oh, nobody is saying "enemy"--but two editors removed that information, and all you had to say was "I don't agree". You clearly broke the 3R line. The block was well-earned. And that's setting aside the whole thing about the sourcing and the content, which were both atrocious. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that is just false. First of all, "I don't agree" is not what I stated. I stated that you don't give valid reasons. Your argument was not "3R line" .... but "unreliable sources", direct sources are not unreliable. You can't condemn and delete an entire section just because you feel that one website source is written in poor English. Is that really the reasoning wikipedia applies nowadays ? TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to misunderstand; I think English is not your first language. I never said anything about a website being in poor English. I said the website was an unreliable source, and that the text in our article was in poor English (not "I feel"--it was in poor English). I also didn't say anything about 3R as an argument because, duh, that's not an argument to revert. Your breaking the red line of 3R was an argument for blocking. If you hadn't reverted a fourth time you might not have been blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I really don't. English is indeed not my first language but I understand it perfectly well. Yeah, I also never argued with a simple statement like "I don't agree" but I'm being misquoted anyway so - I actualy specified and explained for the xth time to why your edit makes no sense from a purely logical POV. So what exactly was in poor English there, can you elaborate at least ? because that is your primary argument for deleting chunks of sourced information. That one was rather irony but yeah I was a little too into it +3R and the consequence is technicaly justified but really you can keep such comments for yourself and my request still stands. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you saying that the poor English was the primary argument? It wasn't. I will be happy to explain, but I don't answer loaded questions. I think you are putting these words into my mouth so you don't have to pay attention to the other editor's three or four policy-based reasons. So here we go:
the English is poor. "Historical Colchis and its relation to Greek mythology has influenced contemporary popular culture with the result of several movies and miniseries as well as fictional depictions" is grammatically incorrect. I don't know what "historical" Colchis is--as opposed to "fictional" Colchis? Or did you mean "historically", which is redundant? Also, "contemporary" with who? "Historical Colchis"? or you? or the last decade? "With the result of" is ungrammatical.
for the nth time, this is a primary source, and so are this and this, making "bears some resemblance" pure original research. If you don't understand what the problem is with that, you really shouldn't be editing here.
same with Percy Jackson, where you cite a primary source and then "Goodreads", which is as about as far from a reliable source as one can get.
"In the 1963 film" is poor writing--which film? Also, you're citing that moviejourneys website again--not a reliable source. And that a miniseries was based on the movie is irrelevant in this article, and there also you're just citing some website. That's fine for Wikia, but not here.
In the last one, "Kingdom of Colchis" is unclear. The REAL kingdom? And again you're citing two websites, not reliable sources, so there is no indication that this matters at all.
You should really, REALLY read WP:RS and WP:OR, besides WP:RECENTISM, WP:TRIVIA, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:UNDUE, already suggested to you by Harizotoh9. So that my edit "makes no sense from a logical POV" is just complete nonsense from the point of view of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Now, I've wasted enough time on this. If you can't judge what reliable sources are and can't control yourself, please stay away from this article, which is already bad enough. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you done with your silly ego trip ? I naturaly agree that the article is in poor shape and definitly needs to expand with much more researched historical content and be sourced adequately or at all in the first place. But why don't you tackle that first rather than the actualy few sourced segments of the article .... ?
It literaly is not. Redundancy is no argument for complete deletion, neither is not knowing what "contemporary" means. Maybe English isn't your first language either ?
Nope, only two of those are ...
I literaly linked "In the 1963 film" with a wikipedia article. If you are that lazy why even bother in the first place .... and also waste MY time as well as yours ?
You basicaly accuse me of what you've been doing consistently on this issue now and the edit history doesn't lie.
Honestly, at this point due to your behavior I don't care what you think. You act very pompous. I am very well aware of these guidelines and you should read them thoroughly yourself in the first place especialy when granted admin privileges. Using primary sources does not go against WP:RS at all, there are regulations on when or how and your reasoning for deletion wasn't even specified or clear in your edits and one complete deletion was reasoned with "poor English" .... using primary sources is not forbidden, however it is preferred to back them up with secondary sources. The only claim that holds somewhat ground is WP:OR, fine. It's a matter of debate but I would of taken care of it sooner or later. Deleting it entirely is not productive editing, especialy without the will to discuss. Further WP:TRIVIA is a complex matter and you used "trivia" as another argument for deletion. Again, read WP:TRIVIA thoroughly because trivia per se isn't forbidden or unwelcome at all as long as it has a purpose including mention of media and pop-culture. The entire issue isn't black and white in the first place, yet conclusions are dropped by people here like a hammer. Complex guidelines don't work like that. WP:FANCRUFT doesn't apply and also is yet another issue you mix with consent policy. There is no firm policy on it to begin with and deleting such things if given are controvesial if anything. You do without even discussing. I openly suggest that user Drmies activities on this issue are reviewed by another admin. It is less a personal grudge than it is a genuine concern for the treatment of wikipedia users. It is also not an individual phenomenon. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note from blocking admin More than three reverts is a bright line violation: 90% of the time, more than three reverts with anything other than clear-cut vandalism or a violation of the biographies of living persons policy will earn a block. Admins are not supposed to use the occasion to adjudicate a dispute - four reverts is a behavioral issue causing disruption to the encyclopedia and is dealt with accordingly. You were clearly warned about edit-warring and chose to continue your disruptive behavior. You must understand that you violated a community norm by edit-warring, and are blocked as a result. A conviction on your part that you're right doesn't entitle you to edit-war, nor does it entitle you to ignore other editors who are trying to advise you on Wikipedia editing policies. If this behavior recurs, subsequent blocks will be longer. This is long-established Wikipedia procedure, and it works. Please take this incident seriously - edit-warring is not tolerated. Acroterion(talk)01:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noone disputes the technical WP:3RR violation. I can still request a review and I did it primarily to bring this entire affair to other peoples ( preferably other admins ) attention. I didn't even have any chance to react and give my position. Two users, at least one admin acted against me almost in suspicious harmony on the "dispute" and you instantanously blocked me after the 4th revert. I don't judge you for that. The block is naturaly justified. But the implication that I feel entitled to wage edit wars for the sake of instead of actualy processing and considering why I do it - because I consider it unjustified for reasons stated which are valid - and need to listen to people who don't properly grasp said guidelines and policies or just very narrow mindedly is plain impudent. I don't know what else to call it. The guidelines I will always take seriously. This behaviour however, I can not. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding the position with respect to edit-warring. The way disputes are resolved is through discussion and consensus, which doesn't take place in a flurry of reverts. Next time use the talkpage, and work to gain consensus for your edits as policy demands. You appear to be attributing a lack of good faith to those with whom you disagree - that isn't appropriate. I disagree with lots of people, both on Wikipedia and in real life. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes nobody's wrong. But (vandals aside) I very rarely encounter true bad faith, and this isn't one of those cases. A superficial reading of the comments concerning your edits shows good-faith concern over your edits and their compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please make an effort to constructively engage those concerns once your block is over. Please do not treat other editors as adversaries. Acroterion(talk)02:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My edit is relentlessly treated and proclaimed as nonsense. I put effort into it and finding alternative-to-direct sources on these particular information is partialy very hard but I try and most of my work is unfinished. I take more time for that than others. Is it essential to the article ? no. Is it a violation against wiki principles and guidelines to have something like that on a historical article ? no. There certainly is no strict or firm policy and imo there shouldn't be as long as it's sourced and subject for improvement. Everything else should be discussed. I don't approve of the blunt deletion of something like that just because some other users don't like it or consider it un-wiki with vague invalid argument. That is what I consider inappropraite and an unfaithful use of privileges and edit rights. I understand your position, but I simply don't agree on downplaying what is actualy unproductive. That is the problem. Thank you for taking your time. I know you are trying to de-escalate a situation. But there is no situation and anything to de-escalate. I don't see anyone as actual adversaries merely because they antagonise my edits. I am just stating a fact, my complaint, concern and dissapointment on how this issue is being treated. It is very unprofessional, just like some of the remarks. I will, but for the time beeing I need to get over this dissapointment. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that professional writers have editors and reviewers, and that any writer on Wikipedia must justify their writing and content to others, responding to criticism in a professional manner. Wikipedia aspires to a professional level of writing, and editors must be able to work within the bounds of "your writing may be ruthlessly edited or rewritten by others," as it used to say in the edit window notice. Acroterion(talk)11:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against that general notion in any way. I stated my reasons to why I have to disagree and principaly oppose the activity on this particular issue. Until there is a firm policy on such niche editing aspects, I will continue to do so and so should others. Violating base editing rules isn't debatable and I regret having done so. Everything else however remains unchanged. Keeping it civilised applies to all parties. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TheMightyGeneral. 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.
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello TheMightyGeneral: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please expand the page, if possible. Thanks.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Thank you for your attention and notification. Any expansion of the article would be very appreciated. Most information however only seems to be available in Russian literature. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi General. Thanks for articles on Georgian military officers, but we don't usually use patronymics neither in Georgian names nor in Wikipedia's article titles in general. Thanks, --KoberTalk21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
Hello. Regarding your comment: There is no official division like that in the first place. It's especialy nonsensical to put some of the highest military orders in an "unofficial" section. But we can seperate royal orders. Okay. I would like to make a clearance, that usually orders created by pseudo-royal houses, not recognized by the Georgian state itself, should not be part of the article due to WP:NN. Though they might be part of an article about the royal house itself.--Melberg (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I've been compiling a list of biographies and events considered more-than-notable-enough to have an article on English Wikipedia. I have a pretty long to-do list that is not part on those lists, hence it will be a long time before I get to the listed redlinks. Do you think you can write some of the articles? (There is an active contest offering barnstars for a large number of full articles). Thank you, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.
Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).
I'm an anthropology student doing an online research project on wikipedians and their motivations and ideals for writing and editing wikipedia pages. I was wondering if you would be interested in answering a few questions I have - sort of like a small online interview.
Hi! Can you please sign the petition to TASS and RIAN requesting them to release certain historic photos (many of them from WWII) for Wikimedia by adding your signature to the signature section? Also, please do spread the word to other Wikipedians. Thanks, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TheMightyGeneral. 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.
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this new article, but note that other editors have called for additional sources. These could be hard-copy books if necessary. Some statements in the section about the armored car are particularly low on footnotes.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
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.
I noticed you are a recently active member of WikiProject Georgia (country). There is ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) regarding content on the Georgia (country) article. You are cordially invited to join the discussion because as WikiProject Georgia member you may be able to offer valuable perspectives. Kind regards --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting the article to include sources that were agreed to be unreliable and to remove content that is reliably sourced. At this point you are just deleting everything you don't like. And please do not use any MOS:ALLEGED language for any sourced content that you still haven't provided any sources to prove should be doubted in any way. --Steverci (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Steverci, your edits are heavily POV, you revert without any kind of consensus nor compromise, remove sources including completely valid academic ones contradicting your preferences, and do exactly what you accuse me of, deleting everything you don't like. You also don't seem to understand how the guidelines work. To write "Accoring to" is absolutely netural and has nothing to do with MOS:ALLEGED. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
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.
After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 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.
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 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.
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk·contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Evstafii Tatanashvili may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
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. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
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. Steverci (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
