This user may have left Wikipedia. CnrFallon has not edited Wikipedia since 22 May 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This edit has been reverted. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 02:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kevin (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (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).
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.
That may be so, but is still not reason enough to continue an edit war. There are other methods available for
resolving disputes. I suggest amending your unblock reason to show how you will stop the behaviour (edit warring) in future. You are more likely to get a result that way. Kevin (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2009 (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 will not make any further reverts it some one undid my revert once without discussing it on the talk page.
Decline reason:
The above sentence makes no sense to me. — Sandstein 23:38, 27 January 2009 (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.
On March 26, you added "The British stopped impressing American sailors" to the talk page of the War of 1812 article. I have removed that comment because, as said directly above where you posted, "If you wish to make a case for who won the war, but do not yet have citations, feel free to do so here: Who Won the War?". I hope this explanation will avoid any confusion. On another quick note, it is generally accepted that impressment stopped because the end of the Napoleonic Wars meant that Britain had no need to impress anymore, as opposed to stopping due to a direct effect of the War of 1812. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I was unclear; the section on the talk page clearly states that if you have an assertion regarding who won the War of 1812, you should post here. I hope this clears things up now, and please could you let me know if you understand my reasoning for the removal so that we avoid getting into an edit war. Thanks in advance. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I will not come across as obstinate, but I have again removed your comment. I did this as per the fact that the section you posted in clearly states that the type of comment added should be posted elsewhere, and per the fact that I notified you of such reasoning twice whilst giving about a day's break between now and the last explanation. I have added your comment to the appropriate place: Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?#Impressment stopped. Please feel free to discuss your contention there. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions
, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good lad - now tell me this - which are article you going to choose? This is an important decision, so think carefully - which article could do with your help and which one can you add most to?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can work on articles a bit, but I cannot commit to anything major at the time being, due to school, I can help when and where I can.--Conor Fallon (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Citations are there"
Would you mind, please, telling me which source on the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article has the information about the Supreme Court invoking article 239? I have not found it, and I was the one requesting a citation for it. --LjL (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honduras
I don't want to take part in a mediation right now with the RM going on and the event still in progress. If we are still arguing about this in a few weeks time, then I might be in favor of mediation. --Tocino 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
crisis NPOV
-POV 1. Zelaya (UN, OAS, EU) say is a "coup etat"
-POV 2. Micheletti (bishops, businessmen, judges, military, and Congress from Honduras) say is a "presidential succession" legitimate.
- Therefore, the term "political crisis" is more appropriate. A "coup 'etat" is a political crisis. This "Presidential Succession", is also a political crisis.
Arafael (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis would be the best name. --Conor Fallon (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made it abundantly clear why your request for mediation was inappropriate on the talk page.Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You requested mediation less than half a day after posting your poll and only because it was clear consensus was against your position. Mediation is not appropriate. Please stop pushing POV.Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not when you made your request for mediation. Wait for the discussion and survey to run a week and then I would be willing to consider whether mediation is necessary.Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are trying to POV push and want to do so ASAP. Wait a week for your survey you posted to have an appropriate time to collect information on consensus. Right now it has not done so as there is clearly NOT consensus except for outside Wikipedia where everyone except Coup Supporters in Honduras calls it a Coup.Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no concensus on what is the NPOV title for the article about this coup. Nor is there a need to rush into abolishing the word coup from the title. That is a POV move as those behind the coup want to white-wash over what really happened for political reasons. As the english speaking world knows of this event as a coup, calling it a coup is the appropriate title. Please reference WP:DUCK. And please stop pestering me about this. There is already lively discussion on the talk page for the article. I will not agree to mediation until other options - including your survey have run their appropriate course. As you pointed out the standard timeline to run a survey is one week and so I say wait one week. Please contain future discussion of this topic to the article talk page.Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GrooveDog's talk page. Message added 04:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply
Please stop adding nonsense to this article. As you point out, it is a bizarre topic, but that doesn't mean that the article should be anything less than factual. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome!
Hi, 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.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.
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! Kirill[talk][pf] 00:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks, Roger Daviestalk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators, Roger Daviestalk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Justin Bieber. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please note that Wikipedia administrators can block editors who engage in vandalism and other disruptive behavior.
Thank you. Please don't vandalize Wikipedia articles by changing the gender of their subjects.SSBohio 03:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at East Greenwich, Rhode Island, you will be blocked from editing. You listed yourself in the infobox for East Greenwich, Rhode Island as its "Emperor." Please refrain from making unsubstantiated self-aggrandizing edits to Wikipedia articles.SSBohio 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Daviestalk 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
You are not increasing roster count. The Drafted players are not signed, the UDFA are, so please move the number up from 74 Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill[talk] 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Roark until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. X96lee15 (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2014 (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!
"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.
It is with sadness that we note the passing of Jim Howes. Throughout his life, Jim worked to make the world a better place. WikiProject Scouting now has no administrators listed as willing to help the WikiProject. If you are an administrator and are willing to help, please let us know here.
You were previously listed as a participant of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, which was an inactive project until recently. It is currently being revived to continue improving content within the project scope and to conduct assessments. If you are still interested in participating, please move your name from the "Inactive Members" section to the main list on the new participants page, then helping with the revival of the project by providing any suggestions you may have and restarting work efforts. If you are no longer interested, please remove your name from the participants page completely. VarietyEditor (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Affirmative action in the United States. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at East Greenwich, Rhode Island, you will be blocked from editing. You listed yourself in the infobox for East Greenwich, Rhode Island as its "Emperor." Please refrain from making unsubstantiated self-aggrandizing edits to Wikipedia articles. SSBohio 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
