Archives

March 2013 onward

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Future of the Royal Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Defence (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) 01:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're a bot and all, but I fixed it. Antiochus the Great (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add on a warning about edit warring - it takes two to tango so to speak, I know you believe the behaviour of Hakan is improper, but it's not acceptable to be edit warring. If you could in future raise issues such as these at WP:AN or similar to bring these issues to attention, in order that they may be resolved before page protection and the like becomes necessary. Nick (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, but I was under the impression that exemptions are made in the case of obvious vandalism (as said here Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions). Had the dispute been over a sentence or a paragraph as per usual edit warring then no, I would have refrained from engaging in reverting his edits, but blanking half an article? Anyway, thank you for help in dealing with the issue and yes, reflecting on the matter I should have brought the issue up with the admins sooner. Cheers!Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've left a message at WP:AN, but in looking into how to resolve the dispute, I discovered the SIPRI data needed to update Table 2 is now available online (please see) http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database - The data there will allow Tables 1 and 2 to match, with up to date data which can be added to Table 2 matching the latest data in Table 1. If you and Hakan can confirm by updating Table 2 the dispute can be resolved amicably, I will unlock the page and allow both of you to resume editing. Nick (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan is asking for an apology over on my talk page. It's not a bad idea that you both apologise to each other and have a talk over at the article's talk page before you begin editing the article again, just to make sure you're both happy and don't edit up edit conflicting each other. Nick (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, you can't explain anything to him. He is too stubborn, and he doesn't want to listen to your offers. Instead he likes calling in friends and provoke the situation.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your good faith message. I left a message on talk page of "list of military spending" article about it.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your very welcome Hakan, I am glad we have sorted our differences and will enjoy working together in future!Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you have sorted out your differences! TheStrikeΣagle 15:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Strike Eagle!Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind but I have been stealing stuff off your user page (and other user pages) to make mine look a little nicer! I hope you don't mind Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem..some 60-70% of my user page was designed by me(even got an award for that!) The rest is just blatant and shameless copy from others! However, if you copy large portions from a single page....make sure you attribute to them.... Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 17:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to alert you that Mediolanum is going through several articles stating that because of the Eurosphere the EU is a superpower. Which isn't quite the case as I'm sure you agree. David (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's adding bits of half-nonsense to superpower. Oh joys. David (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! And I agree the EU is most certainly not a superpower. Hes also editing in POV at the Italy article saying that Italy is a "major" or "main" regional power.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The regional power article does categorise the powers into major/minor - so that's perhaps where he's coming from with that. Perhaps something to look into? David (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, oversight on my behalf, cheers for setting me straight on the matter.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Indian_Armed_Forces#Request_for_Comment:_Criticism_Section. You would be wise to contribute constructively here. Note that I say 'constructively', as in 'not the way you have been editing until now'.Handyunits (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not suggest I have not been editing constructively, accusing an editor of such behavior is generally not a good idea on Wikipedia.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]