User talk:Wiki1609

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Elenium (band), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.eleniumband.com/band666.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

Alright, it isn't irrelevant, it is redundant because just before that it already states that the word chef means "head" as well you are stating language information after where the article already begins discussing the culinary purpose of the word.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For the new additions you made at Criticism of Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as I saw you implicated into the debate I think useful to give you the signification of some legal internation law words ;) (I'm really sorry if you are a jurist).

This concerns only the second dispute (about succession). I think you perfectly understand the problem with the infobox dates so I won't talk about it.

A "successor state" is a legal word to define a new state, which is saw by international opinion as being in a certain way a "child" of a "predecessor state". The word if often used when a state split into another but can also be used talking about fusion of state or scission. Succession may refer to the transfer of rights, obligations, and/or property from a previously well-established prior state (the predecessor state) to the new one (the successor state). Transfer of rights, obligations, and property can include overseas assets , participation in treaties, membership in international organizations, and debts. Often a state chooses piecemeal whether or not it wants to be considered the successor state.

In an attempt to codify the rules of succession of states the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties was drafted in 1978. It entered into force on November 6, 1996.

Often transfer of rights concerns border treaties and treaties which are bound to a precise territory. However a "sucessor" state can decide to continue all the rights and obligations of its predecessor or to apply the principe of "tabula rasa" which implies exactly the opposite. A "notification of succession" means in relation to a multilateral treaty any notification, however phrased or named, made by a successor State expressing consent to be bound by one or more treaties.

According to these definitions (most of them from the Vienna international convention about succession of treaties [1], and some from international doctrine) this is very clear, but this is only my POV, that it exists no international status "continuing the the international personnality". Our case is a succession with a transfer of all international right, which is confirmed by the European Journal of International Law [2] : "From the point of view of State succession, the USSR dissolved into four categories of States.

The first category (of successor state) consists of the Russian Federation, a State which claims to be the continuation of the former USSR. Unlike the similar claim made by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, this claim has been widely accepted by other States.

The second category (of successor state) consists of the Ukraine and Belarus[...]

That's why the source of Mikyogan [3] and mines [4] are both correct (That's also the reason why I added his source too in th article). However I repeat this is only my POV. I'm encouraging you to read the sources' texts if you have any doubt about my definitions (or about my english ^_^).

To conclude just on word about the title : Russia is not the same country as the Soviet Union. It concerns the beginning of our case as Mikyogan was asserting that SU and Russia was the same sovereign country. I consider this case as closed as User:Doopdoop found sources from the Russian parliment and that we had also another source asserting the opposite [5]. However I looks like Mikyogan is just back on this: "Russia de facto never lost its sovereignty" (which is clearly not the case [6] :/).

Uncle Scrooge (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS => These are articles about international succession on eng. wikipedia (they are not perfectly correct, however I quoted some sentences above)

• Succession of states
• Russia and the United Nations

Hello! I noticed you added a reference to some article somewhere. That is great! Wikipedia needs better sourcing. However, I thought I'd give you a pointer - for an article to reach Good Article or Featured Article status, which of course is the goal with every article, inline citations are required. So if you are contributing to an article, add inline citations for everything you add while you're at it. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources for instructions. There are a number of template you can use, for example {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}. Happy editing! Jobjörn (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my personal experience, it means to conquer Constantinople. I am an Iraqi (Assyrian by ethnicity) and my mother told me that the saying was used for instance when a task could be accomplished in many ways, that is correct. However, it also has another meaning. The Arabs found that the way to Constantinople was by sea and by land. Furthermoore, land routes could be via the Cilician gates, through Anatolia's mountains in Cappadocia, through the European sides. Effectively, all roads led to Rome! And the Arabs used this saying to emphasize that it was their destiny to take the city.

Thanks, I'll make sure to add that footnote in.

talk) 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for uploading Image:BrokenCrescent.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked

Dacid nicolle in his book Yarmouk 636 wrote on page no 65 that muslims were outnumbered by 4 to 1. Which implies around 100,000 byzantine troops at yarmouk. Now all argues should be stoped imediately and info box should be edit. Nicolle was considered the best source for this battle and it mentioned 25,000 muslims and 100,000 byzantines. if any one have any doubts then gimme your email address i will sent you the page of that book. Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reinserted the cleanup template for the

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

Please go to

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged

Mohammad Adil (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ohh kid, bro i am Lieutenant in pakistan army and will be captain next year. as for any sort of revelent education, so man i am not only more then "educated" in military strategies and tactics but also i have performed them practicly during exercises.

any thing you wanna say now ? and i invite you again to discuss the 7500 size of muslim army that you mentioned, and kegri's funny 15,000. man muslims were not super human that they could conquere syria, a land of 6.5 million population, with such a small army get a life... have you ever saw 7500 armed men at one place ? i hv saw ! and 15,000 troops are too few to even guard Syria. come in the discussion fourm and we will decide once again who is "educated" and who is not, actually i am not educated i am "professional". i have been reading, writing and researching on muslims conquest of Syria for last 3 years, it was also my project during my PMA years. i suggest you to be unbais and accept that Muslim invasion was booombastic ! becoz infact it was. i am waiting for you there at discussion fourm, for then i have reverted your edits. no offenses Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is still insufficient, and it still lacks a

copyright tag. I am not seeing why the image is needed- fair use images should be used as a last resort (as opposed to free images, which can be placed in any related article) and this one seems to be pretty decorative- 'here is an example of a German sniper'. Would the text be any more difficult to understand without it? J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Only one problem. PHAND was created specifically to deal with the conspiracy theories (for them to be true, there had to be conspiracy somewhere along the way), & to keep it off the main attack page. Otherwise, it will clog up the page & lead to endless edit warring over it. (Have a look at the attack talk page for just one recent example, & the archive talk of PHAND, if you doubt that.) And "mention" in the Penguin history isn't exactly the most authoritative source I can imagine. So you're gonna have to live with a a "single hard-to-find" link until the conspiracy nuts come to their senses in the face of the actual evidence it wasn't "arranged". (The gist of the section I took out was, it had been.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how to write an article? You're the one adding fringe theories no serious historiographer believes (& in 30 years of reading in this area, I've seen only a handful of writers who do). Your belief in FDR's "thirst for war" ignores his express aim, aid Britain. War with Germany, in that context, makes sense. War with Japan, as the conspiracy theories suggest, is irrational. Do you believe FDR was irrational? The conspiracy theory also implicitly requires the Japanese be incompetent to achieve the result on their own. Do you believe that, too? And you expect me to take it seriously? Moreover, there is a thing called "undue weight"; adding mention of this fringe proposition is undue to what it deserves. Furthermore, I'm not the one who decided the PHAND page should be the exclusive place for discussing it, contrary to what you seem to believe; if it was up to me, that page would have been speedy deleted within minutes of being created. It does, however, keep the ridiculous claims off the main page, which is what it was designed for. If the main page turns into a litany of the absurd, I hope you'll be satisfied it's now "scientific". It's will, however, no longer be credible. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article V28 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable band

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  bot
  , and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

battle of yarmouk

we had a long discussion on the talk page of battle of yarmouk, what you wanted to add was not according to wiki policies and i proved it, didnt i ? didnt you get that ? you even cheated by providing wrong references and stuff like that, i am not gonna repeat every thing again and again, it seems once in a while you jump in that article and start your disruptive edits that were never considered by any user as constructive in any sense. So if this time you have any thing new to discuss, then we can have a discussion but if you gonna put your same retarded theories and personal attacks and islamofobia sort of things, then please, dont waste your time and my time. and why it is that you and user Giordaano always jumps in the same time on the article of islamic history ? i am going to report the admin about the possibility of you using two accounts.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ground ceremony

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ground ceremony, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.scottdesign-me.com/port_event_coordination/port_event_55w_breaking_ground.html.

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

talk) 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK nomination of Werner Wrangel

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Cavalry (Message me) 23:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of V28 (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article V28 (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V28 (band) 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Volksdeutsche, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resistance. 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) 09:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]