User talk:SonyLe854

Archives

/Archive 1

I'm not sure what's going on at this article, but it is clear that

You didn't revert "only one thing", you reverted the entire edit. Anyway, while I agree that Colipon should have taken this up with you sooner, there is nothing wrong with his reverting your edit the first time (see

WP:BRD

); your re-reverting his after you know it was contested, and not giving any reason whatsoever, is stubborn. Pointing the finger at other editors is never the way to resolve a dispute; just deal with the article itself, not arguing over who is right or wrong.

I don't really have anything more to do here so please take this up with Colipon at a talk page if you disagree about something. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you when an edit of yours is a problem is not "taking sides", it's trying to stop an issue before it begins. I notice that you have not bothered to leave any message with Colipon yet but are instead wasting your time whining to me. I have already said that I don't have anything more to do here, so I don't see why you feel that is necessary. If there is a problem, go start a discussion, as I have already advised twice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand how telling you you're edit warring

when you're edit warring

is "biased". If you don't understand what edit warring means, take a close look at the passages try[ing] to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and Reverting without giving good reasons is more likely to be perceived as combative.

But anyway, since you have decided to get juvenile about this, I have nothing further to discuss with you. For the fourth time, if you disagree with any of the edits go start a discussion with Colipon about it, instead of arguing with me over how bad I am. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. If I were a biased "strongarm" I would have blocked you for tendentious editing, instead of locking both of you out of the page. Colipon asked me to do something completely acceptable by the guidelines (to undo a contentious move; the only reason he asked me to do it rather than doing it itself was because it involved moving the page over a redirect, which only an administrator can do), not because I am someone's strongarm. You have been behaving like a child by stubbornly edit-warring without ever offering an explanation for your edits, and for choosing to whine at me over and over again even though I have already given you ample opportunities to engage in discussion. Anyone would have warned you by now for this sort of immature behavior. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made absolutely no attempt to discuss the changes to the article even after Colipon started a discussion at the talk page, and now you have continued edit-warring as soon as the page protection expired. I have reported you

here, and you will be blocked for edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Andres, the Burmese Empire was the Konbaung dynasty. It's imprecise to put Burma as the "Burmese Empire." Thanks for your interest. Hybernator (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what you think is the correct name for Wellington's army, what matters is what the sources commonly state and you have not done anything but introduce your preferred name not the name commonly used in the the sources.

See

talk) 23:31, 3 July 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 Davies ^talk 21:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi there,

I agree with you about moving this [1], if I would have known about the vote I would have participated. Let me know in future. cheers Gryffindor (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Gryffindor (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You posted a request at the

need your opinion (Idot (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, SonyLe854. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 00:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

[2], sorry man didn't realise you were just updating the links, thought something else. Ceoil (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dont worry about that, i imagined it was a mistake, saludos--

talk) 18:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

As in many ancient paintings, words sometimes do not make sense to the average person nowadays. That sentence '軍門固原發兵' says literally 'military door Goo-Yuan (is is it a place name perhaps?) issue soldiers'. If you google for that you'll get many hits including [3]. Goo-Yuan is apparently Guyuan. It appears that this is the first painting in the series of 14. So judging by that and the phrase, this is the beginning of the campaign, not the end. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my father-in-law to help me understand the context. He reminded me that 軍門 (literally: military door) was the vernacular reference to the highest-ranking military official in a province (see [4]). Last night I was in a hurry and replied to you without reading that site I showed you. Apparently this image is part of the 平番得勝圖 (victories against barbarians) series (google for it in all languages). Here is the text that described it:

大明神宗萬曆皇帝《平番得勝圖》（局部） 現收藏于故宮博物院藏 平番得勝圖卷係由明初朱元璋外甥李文忠的後代保存，稱“岐陽王世家文物”，是一卷描繪萬曆年間平定西北少數民族叛亂的歷史畫卷。畫面反映了萬曆三年（西元1575年）；甘肅西南部西番族攻打洮州（今甘肅省臨潭縣），明政府派固原（今寧夏回族自治區固原縣）鎮總兵官領河州（今甘肅省臨夏縣）兵馬鎮壓的過程。全圖共分為14幅畫面。第一幅名為“軍門固原發兵”，第二幅為“固原兵備劉伯燮”，第三幅為“陜西總兵官孫國臣”，第四幅為“白化嶺”，……最後一幅為“軍門固原賞功”。畫卷中的明代西北少數民族風俗屋宇，與文獻記載完全一致，是研究明代軍事與民俗的珍貴實物。

If this article was right, the scene depicted was supposed to have taken place in the third year of Wanli's reign when he was still a child (year 1575). If you are really interested in details, you may want to google for this in simplified Chinese 平番得胜图; it appears to yield slightly different set of pages. I don't seem to find much additional info online. If you really want to follow up, contact me again. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I was just about to create an article on Sino-Sikh War, having spent several days searching for sources, and you beat me to it. Congratulations! Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

My first barnstar thanks :), i got interested on Tibetan military history and found out about this war i've never heard before so it was fun reading of it, if you havent read it yet the book Footprints in the snow: on the trail of Zorawar Singh has the most detailed coverage of the war from the books i've read so far on this was, so enjoy.--

talk) 22:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. Zanhe (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to move it to

talk) 17:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree. It is a very bad thing to have different articles on titles which differ only in capitalisation or diacritical marks - if only because it confuses Wikipedia clones that use non-case sensitive, non-accented titles. I stick by my recommendation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I havent tought about the clones. Then I agree with you its best to move

talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• move Bömbögör to Bömbögör, Bayankhongor
• fix all current incoming links to Bömbögör - possibly not too difficult since most arise from a template
• convert
  R from diacritics}} pointing to Bombogor
• convert Bombogor into a disambiguation page.

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

Hi. When you recently edited Siege of Lilybaeum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panormus (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) 10:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mughal-Safavid War (1622–1623) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Khorasan

Siege of Cyropolis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aristobulus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the "

]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Phrygians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to

Indo-European people, Mygdon, Lydian, Asius and Moschi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing vast amounts of material from the Great Britain and Russian lists of wars? You need to explain yourself. If you persist in what I regard as being perverse removal of information I will take action. David (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to add wars (which I see you did to the British list for example, having first removed almost all the article) then do so in the format that already exists. There is no justification for removing all the existing tables and information contained within. David (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tables because they are unnecessarily cumbersome for a simple list. Detailed information on the wars (like allied nations, treaties signed, casus belli...) belongs in the infobox of articles and are not useful in a list because the make the list way longer and i doubt that anyone wanting to know who where Great Britain's allies in WWII would refer to this list instead of the more detailed article of WWII. Like you saw i haven't removed a single war from the list, in fact i have added many wars that were still not listed but only removed unnecessary information that is cumbersome both for the reader and the editor. --

Do you not think you should have discussed this on the article talk pages first? Your change to simple text lists is very considerable and removes much hard work by several editors over the years. (And I don't see how the tables are "cumbersome"!) I will put this issue on the British article's talk page and see if other editors have any opinions on the matter. David (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No there was no reason to inquire in previous editor's opinions because articles and lists have no owner and tough i see you're point of having sentimental attachment to articles where one has put much work i think we should work to make better reading material and not just giving a list the format we find pretty.--

"Sentimental attachment"?! A number of editors have previously contributed to the articles in the way they did. Then there's your opinion. You are clearly in the minority here. And no it's nothing to do with a format that looks pretty. It's functionality, which is something more than minimalism, which is what you seem to want. David (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Functionality is the key issue, and is best served with providing the required information:name of the war and date when it happened, everything else is just an accessory that only adds unnecessary information, which in most cases isn't read because the reader isn't interested in reading the whole list but on finding a specific conflict.--

Can you please take a look at the DRN thread regarding the wars debate? It's taking up a extraordinary amount of the page's content and appears to have a tentative proposed resolution. If there is no response with 72 hours of this posting, I intend to close the thread with the proposed solution. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't finish--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Brabant Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabac (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) 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Zava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan (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) 11:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Dartsedo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hualin (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) 10:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Emayv. Andres rojas22, thanks for creating Battle of Kafir Qala!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. A great start to the article, but you should probably add some references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artists Rifles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nash (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) 11:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Battle of Hartmannswillerkopf, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/hartmannswillerkopf/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Ghazni (1117), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan (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) 19:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Second Javanese War of Succession, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mataram and Batavia (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) 10:05, 10 September 2013 (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).

SonyLe854 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. Place any further information here.

talk) 06:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

The IP address you're using has been blocked, because it acts like a

IP Block Exemption, this would only be done if there was an actual need for you to edit from this IP address. PhilKnight (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2014 (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.

You are an old Wikipedian, that's right? GXXF T • C 19:20,9/26/2016 —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andres rojas22. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A formerly useful web site has begun to attack users with fake user support scams. Please delete the link zzz.heritage-history.moc from User:Andres rojas22/My sandbox

Before performing the delete, change the zzz to www and change moc to com.

Please see Talk:Spam blacklist#www.heritage-history.com

Jc3s5h (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andres rojas22. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andres rojas22. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andres rojas22. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andres rojas22! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to

Category:Venezuelan people of World War I has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Bahraini people has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]