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]

Regarding any edit warring exemptions: vandalism has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia: "Vandalism is [...] a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (WP:VANDAL).
Any content edit that can possibly be seen in good faith is not vandalism. Changing content against consensus is not vandalism. The changes at List of countries by military expenditures were not vandalism, neither were the edits at Superpower.
When in doubt, don't revert. As you really should have realized by now, it hardly ever results in a durable solution. Usually, someone gets blocked and/or leaves Wikipedia. We are in no hurry, it's not worth it.
Amalthea 22:17, 30 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]

Hi. I want to update the table but I can't open the excel file. Can you upload it to talk page so I can work on it?--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I do no know how upload an excel file to Wikipedia... I cannot even copy and paste sue to the complex columns and row layout. Do you have Microsoft excel? If you do then you should be able to open the file. I was planning on starting to update the table on Wednesday anyway... its a BIG job :) Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to tell you that the United Kingdom is a country (in the sense of a sovereing state) but not a nation. "A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history." --> There are 4 nations in the UK: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the UK, each nation has its own language, culture, history... Therefore, the UK is not a nation state but a sovereign state or country, such as Belgium, India... aren't nation states cause they're divided in several nations. -- Atoine85 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

England is a country, Scotland is a country, therefore how can the UK (which constitutes 4 countries) be a country itself? You speak madness!!! A nation can encompass one or more countries while a country is simply just one country. It is very simple really. Also the United Kingdom itself is not sovereign, the Monarch in Parliament is sovereign. That's partly why we swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch and not the United Kingdom and why other countries swear an oath of allegiance to a flag or a large piece of rock they call their country.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One for your attention.

Template talk:List of Great powers by date#Proposal

Surprise, surprise - another anon. IP editor... David (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, this IP is from Shanghai, PRC!!! Indians and Chinese are enemies by nature..so I still wonder why he proposed the addition of India! TheStrikeΣagle 08:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Brilliant. David (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention guys! Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just read your comment about how editing as an anon. IP (changing the IP address of course) seems to have the advantage of "getting away with stuff"! It has never, in all my 10 years of editing Wikipedia, ceased to amaze me how Wikipedia has never addressed the issue of IP editors, especially when about a quarter of everyone's time on here is spent dealing with them. I have always edited with my name, but I am tempted just to log off and edit merrily away without any care. David (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think people should have to register with an email address in order to make edits to Wikipedia. There would be a lot less trouble.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is harassment and it is trolling.

I am very disappointed by the lack of attention the administrators and other "senior" editors have paid to this saga. David (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The superpower article is now unprotected. Is it worth trying to edit it so that it reflects potential superpowers? David (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a vote on the matter. Talk:Superpower#Update this article to reflect potential superpowers. David (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say but Drkness Shines (and name well shows his scting) rules in how manging articles.Your weight is mostly 0.151.40.34.218 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]