User talk:NuclearWizard/Archives/2

Here's my content from 2017!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. IM3847 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monarchism in Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:NuclearWizard, Hi. I wanted your assessment, whether or not you think that it is a good idea to add the following edit in the section of the article entitled "Peace efforts"?

Suggested Edit:

The "Russian Center for reconciliation of opposing sides" has been actively involved in efforts to restore law and order, the Russian Federation army claiming that they have, as of 9 June 2017, 'signed agreements with some 1,571 representatives of the inhabited areas in Syria,' where they have agreed to cease all hostilities against the Syrian government. [A] In addition, some 219 groups in Syria who had formerly been suspected of involvement in armed resistance have agreed to the terms of a ceasefire. [B].

SOURCES:

• [A] = Russia Insider: Military Briefing (Current Situation), posted 9 June 2017, Time: 0:45
• [B] = Russia Insider: Military Briefing (Current Situation), posted 9 June 2017, Time: 0:59

Looking forward to your reply.---Davidbena (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the al-Tanf agreement is notable enough to include on the timeline, based on the current level of detail, yes. However, I don't think it'd be appropriate for the peace efforts section. Nuke (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I respect your opinion, since you have worked on this article more than I have, and you seem to have more expertise in the general subject matter than I do. All the best.Davidbena (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm humbled by your compliment. Thanks. Nuke (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Aleppo City map was removed by your latest edit. Could you please fix it? TheNavigatrr (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems it's already been restored. Nuke (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed many key places. Important towns, some frontline fortifications. It is difficult for me to restore them, so I will be doing many small edits. Mostly I will remove hilltops and abandoned bases rather than towns. In the end, it will look clean and good. I am just warning you ahead so you don't panic. TheNavigatrr (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm sorry that I apparently messed up. Which important towns did I remove? I'm primarily focused on relieving that clutter. Nuke (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You remove a lot villages but restored not having strategic importance military checkpoints or the train stations deep at SAA and SDF controlled ground. I just want to know why? Maybe need restored some of them and remove checkpoints, train stations and some not importent the grain silos which located not at frontline. Mehmedsons (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine if you restore what I removed in error, but you restored way too much. Nuke (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must use crediable sources for editing rather than just a assumptions. A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided. And you must know if clashes an the mile from (town/village/hill,military base) is it not a reason to make it as disputed. Mehmedsons (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you removed fout of SDF controlled mountains and addition another one village Ghanim al Ali at wrong location? As for now we have the SAA controlled Ghanim al Ali at correct location. Mehmedsons (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did that on accident because I thought I forgot to move them to the overview map. Of course, it turned out someone had completely reverted my hours of changes. Then I discovered Ghanim al-Ali is in the overview map, too. I thought it was only temporarily increased to marksize 7 for its contested state. I guess it's larger than I thought. Nuke (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source that you use for edit make mention that SAA is steadily advancing on the ISIS stronghold, leaving only 700 meters between their front-lines and the city’s gates. Is it not a good reason make it as disputed because according source Syrian army still not reached even the city gates. Mehmedsons (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I had seen a Twitter source claim that the SAA had seized ISIS positions within the city; therefore, I looked for a more reliable source to verify this claim (I don't put much trust in Twitter.) and used AMN to cite it without realizing that the claim was different than what I'd seen claimed. However, I believe this should still be marked on the map somehow. I've made a rural marker for the outskirts of al-Sukhnah which are controlled by the SAA, with an estimated latitude and longitude based on a 700m difference. Is this fine? Nuke (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source which you use make mention that ISIL launched a desperate offensive on the strategic city of Al-Shaddadi and striking the SDF positions just south of Al-Shaddadi. But SDF have mostly repelled the attack and kill many of ISIL militants that were attempting to reach the city.link Its a not good reason to make the city as disputed. Mehmedsons (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They said the clashes were still ongoing. Therefore it is still a contested city. Nuke (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree Source make mention ISIL began the assault and striking the SDF positions just south of Al-Shaddadi. But SDF have mostly repelled assault and kill many of militants that were attempting to reach the city. It prove that city not disputed and the clashes to south of it. Mehmedsons (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, up for interpretation I guess, but in either case, the battle is probably over based on the lack of continued coverage, so let's just mark it as SDF territory. Nuke (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kyoko Nakayama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Party of Hope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there should only be one blue link per entry per MOS:DABENTRY, not two. Just keep that in mind for future edits please. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Yeah, that was an accident. Sorry. Nuke (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi That account have reverted all of your edit. What is the solution ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Saudi led coalition also target ISIL/AQAP. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't need to specify if I'm correct. Nuke (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the article of the YCW, we should update it. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there's a guy reverting all of my edits, so I really can't. Nuke (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I revert him ? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Nuke (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He have no argument, it is a form of obstruction. On April, I have opened a topic and no people opposed to my proposal. Please go to his talk page and the YCW's talk page. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He continues his disruptive editing, accused me for being a socket puppet and insulted me. Enough is enough. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He have opened an ANI against you and me. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made only 1 revert in the article. Whether my revert takes place 24 hours before that of others or not, does not matter, since I have not done previously revert. It was not about the same thing. The second was a once revert, not the first. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC) --Panam2014 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, but I guess it's really up to the admins to decide that. I hope they agree with you. Nuke (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too. Could you in this case specify it so as not to mislead them?--Panam2014 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He continues his drama. He have not the right to propose a sanction. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi An article Battle of Sana'a (2017) have been created. For the module, should we create a new color ? And for the infobox after that ? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a section about this on the appropriate template talk page. Template_talk:Yemeni_Civil_War_detailed_map Nuke (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chilicheese ignored your response and removed STC claiming that there are no message in talk page. What is the solution ? A request for page protection, an AN editwarring ? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just assume he didn't see it. I didn't ping him, and I took awhile to post on the talk page. I've made similar mistakes, and per policy we should continue to assume good faith. Nuke (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give your opinion here ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Source for Khoukha. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could you add it ? Also, republican guards have joined Hadi. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've seen Arab-language sources seemingly (machine translated) claiming that pro-Hadi forces are fighting against allied Houthi/Saleh forces elsewhere. Currently uncertain what to put. Can you refer to Template talk:Yemeni Civil War detailed map#Battle of Sana'a (2017) pro-Saleh coloring? Nuke (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old article who has been publish in November 2017.--Panam2014 (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A contributor edits the module without consensus. Could you give your opinino in the module's talk page ? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Hi, Please either provide sources that supersede my "vague sources" or don't revert my edits. The source was clear, a pro-hadi article, stated that the saudi led coalition hit in many areas in Al-bayda area, that show houthis fully control the Bayda Governorate. 128.175.87.38 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arabic-language source states that the following locations are under Houthi control or have a Houthi presence:

Baal Ghneim, Al-Qari, Al-Matarash site in Al-Sumait area, Al-Rouq site near Noufan, and Hama

I do not see any of these in your revision. Please make concise revisions which are properly cited. Nuke (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you continue to revert which is disruptive, you can't have it both ways, all these areas are located in southern Bayda area, and as far as I am concerned you don't have any source that supersede what I have provided. An when I spoke to Panam2014 the only source you have was before Ali Abdullah Saleh was killed, so you, yourself are just going out in a limb to guess where saleh forces are located. 128.175.87.38 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source I had before Saleh was killed was actually an accident, and I was trying to prove that the Houthis had control of the areas of the al-Bayda governorate which you are currently attempting to have colored as under Houthi control. Yes, it was before Saleh was killed. But no, I did not attempt to use it to undo your edit. That said, this is the exact reason why I am so keen to revert your edits making those areas Houthi-controlled now in regards to your Nov 22 source which preceded this year's Battle of Sana'a. Please do not repeat such additions without taking it to the talk page. Nuke (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 128.175.87.38 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chilicheese have removed STC without consensus Enough is enough. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I open a new ANI ? And also, I think we should create a socketpuppet investigation because CC22 and he iP have the both deleted STC and Saleh forces from the map. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: back off. Your constant brokering for sanctions over the tiniest of perceived infractions is the only disruption that is currently occurring in this discussion, and you are very close to forum-shopping by posting these same comments here, there, and everywhere. Please stick to discussion about the article content on the article talk page. Courtesy ping Chilicheese22 because you are clearly trying to discuss their behaviour without them noticing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, @Ivanvector: Panam has just broken a WP:1RR on the Yemeni Civil war map [1] by reverting twice in less then 24 hours. Should I open an edit warring thread for him. I also don't know why he is contacting Nuclear and asking for his advice, as he is not an administrator. Chilicheese22 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you should just discuss on the article talk page. You're both breaking 1RR on the map. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I'm sorry, he's clearly gone strong. I am entitled to open an "ANI" as CC22 provoked an edit warring. An edit warring is not just about violating the "3RR". CC22 has gone into force by surprise and it is not a collaborative behavior. We (me and CC22) have broken any sanction.

We did not violate the "1RR" since it happened on WM Commmons and not on en.wiki. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chilicheese22: no, we have not broken the 1RR because the edit warring happened in Commons not here. In WMC, there are no 1RR. And your maps are bad by Ermaniach's own confession. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "File uploaded locally prevents visibility of same file on Commons?". Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing at Yemeni Civil War.

Posting this notice for you as well, since you are also heavily involved in the talk page discussion. Please see the noticeboard thread if you wish to comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Would you like to open the RfC ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]