User talk:ULIFOX 3XX

October 2023

Hi ULIFOX 3XX! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Falklands War several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Falklands War, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. 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 test edits, please use your 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. Use talk page, don't edit war Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see whats the mistake that i made on the Falklands Islands dispute? and on the others? Tell me every article. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, that wasnt for cite or to verify something, that was for timelines, for example in 1832 it wasnt the United Provinces, it was the Argentine Confederation because that says wikipedia in both articles ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you inserted the contentious words 'British occupation' without seeing the rest. About the names, the country's name change and the date the UK flag was raised, are close together. Do you have proper references to say it was the Confederation, not the United Provinces? Wikipedia is not a reference. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute before the British occupation you see that the islands were controlled by the Argentine Confederation (December 1832 – January 1833). If you are going to complain to someone, do it to someone from that article, because at the time of the occupation, Buenos Aires was being controlled by the Federal Pact (Argentine Confederation).

And about the "controversial" word "occupation" you say that I need to cite a reliable source, well:

[1]https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Gi8nvVVXEaIC&dq=spanish+governors+falklands&pg=PA5&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=spanish%20governors%20falklands&f=false

(Page 10)

[2]https://web.archive.org/web/20100401100750/http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html

(The British Reoccupation)

[3]https://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses/702/

And I'm sorry about this, but... Do you really think that coming with a warship to a territory to take control of the Falklands is a reassertion of British sovereignty? The occupation of the Falklands by Argentina in 1982 is not the same? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, WP is not a reference. Whatever is written on another article does not affect this article. Your last reference is a masters thesis so shouldn't be used either, or should have other sources used with it. I cannot see anything on your falklandsinfo reference about a British occupation. Pls note that the term occupation can have or imply different things depending on the context. Here, you are using it to mean an unlawful military occupation, not an occupation by someone who just happens to be living there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So who was in control of the islands in 1832? I don't think it was the United Provinces because they had already ceased to exist in 1831, and who took control of the islands in 1833? British islanders who simply controlled the islands and then said "Oh, this is British."? No, it was an occupation (military? I don't know, they came to the islands with a warship and forcibly removed the Argentine flag), and I never said at any time if it was "illegal." Is this "reaffirmation" something Argentina did in 1982 or not? Why is it not reaffirmation then? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps nobody was 'in control' (or had 'effective possession'), not until the Clio arrived.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was many comand in the islands, which controlled all the islands, the British made a effective possesion in 1846 when they created the Falklands dependencies ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your facts are confused and wrong so however well intentioned you might be you will be adding incorrect detail. The Falklands became a Crown Colony in 1840. The Falkland Island Dependencies were created in 1908, and the Falklands itself wasn't a dependency. You seem to think that change happens only in seperate years whereas many changes can happen in one year, such as in 1831 or 1832. There were many events happening during this time so you should be specific and say when exactly something happened, dd/mm/yy, not just 'in 1832'. Effective possession means just that. Without getting into detail it looks like Vernet couldn't enforce his own regulations on foreign ships that didn't recognise his authority, so how effective was his possession of the islands? That was before what there was of his settlement and authority was destroyed by the Lexington raid. This is far from simple but you seem to be spouting out a version of events that suits just one side, the Argentine side. Most of what comes out of Argentina is a twisted version of the truth. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I hear "the Argentine side is distorted" something that only the British side would say to benefit themselves. The control over the islands and their maritime space becomes fully effective when Buenos Aires sends Vernet in 1829 and creates the "Political and Military Command of the Malvinas (Falklands) Islands, Adjacent to Cape Horn in the Atlantic Sea." Even their maritime spaces, that's why the Falklands expedition takes place, because Vernet did not allow American schooners to be on the islands and the Brazil Squadron sent that expedition. Do you want "dd/mm/yy"? Well, on January 4, 1831 the Federal Pact is created, in which the Province of Buenos Aires was, the same Province that had sent Vernet and that controlled almost the entire country de facto. The last province joined on September 3, 1832. And when did the British operation on the Islands take place? Exactly, December 20, 1832, the entire country was under the control of the Argentine Confederation.

And after the US attack on the Falklands, the government of Buenos Aires sent Juan Esteban Francisco Mestivier to try to rebuild the almost destroyed Puerto Soledad, so even after that attack, the islands were not forgotten or something like that. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Your recent editing history at Occupation of the Falkland Islands shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kahastok talk 22:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on this article as well

Your recent editing history at Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kahastok talk 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for saying the truth, aha. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]