User talk:Xeeron

Thanks. I did not know the pages in the user namespace show up in the category lists. Alaexis 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any number on the policy page, but I guess the second part of your answer means it is not actually written down in policy. Thx for answering. --Xeeron 19:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't fight the bureaucracy. They just change the rules as they see fit to favor their own causes.

I noticed the removal of the tag. I haven't seen any issues on that talk page in some time, so no problem there. I just wanted to mention that if I recall correctly, the reason for the tag originally was due to some activity that was either archived or removed entirely quite a while ago. If it starts again, the tag can always be re-added later.

On another topic ... based on the few lines you have, I can't say I feel as strongly about the GW sale as you; but I can certainly understand where you're coming from on that. Still, good to see another refugee from that site taking an interest in WP. I know you've been here a while, but your edits are certainly more frequent recently. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is useful for new users, as it places a condensed "wikietiquette" on a highly visible place. However, it is also big, ugly and could distract from more important points on the talk page, so I'd rather not see it on a page that has only limited editing by people who might need to read anything in the tag. If whatever issue you refer to happens again, we can reapply it of course.

The anger about the GW sale has subsided, but I still very much keep in mind that while wikis are a great colaborative instrument, the volunteer work by many can be abused by some few if the community at large is not viligant.

My recent activity is mostly due to the high profile south ossetia war article I adopted on my watchlist and tried to form into something readable, but I have indeed been around for quite a while (and I noticed some familiar names on the guild wars contributions list). --Xeeron (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The simplest way to add a reference is by placing <ref> before and </ref> after the link. --Xeeron (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the brackets you use:

• http://example.org displays as http://example.org
• [http://example.org] displays as [1]
• [http://example.org Examplepage] displays as Examplepage --Xeeron (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed: You might have been talking about the number of the reference. Don't worry about that one, if you edit a section, it will display these wrongly in the preview. Once you view the whole article, it will be correct. --Xeeron (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your revert of my edit because, and please hear me out:
- your reference for the number of 273 killed says not killed but 273 wounded and 44 killed, also claimed by HRW, and the claim is a two-month-old claim so it is out-off-date;
- your references do not mention anywhere Memorial, at least I haven't seen it;
- finaly the new claim by HRW, based on the investigation conducted by the BBC, states that a number of 300-400 killed (killed not casualties) is a good STARTING POINT to reveal the true number of dead.

In essence the new policie of HRW is that 300-400 people were killed at the minimum, you can forget the 100 number or the 44 number earlier claimed. C'mon please, the 44 number was claimed only a day after the war ended, before any real investigation was conducted by HRW.89.216.236.45 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my entry on the talk page before reverting? I stated there that the source (which I didnt come up with, but which was in the article) for Memorial was weak. It does not say 44 killed or 100 killed! The exact text is "Alexander Cherkasov of Russia's leading rights group, Memorial, who also visited the region, said the number of dead civilians is usually not higher than the number of wounded. He said 273 civilians were officially registered as wounded in the main hospital in South Ossetia". The source was also not reinserted for HRW's claim of 100, but for the memorial claim.

Regarding the new HWR source, the exact text is "The Russian prosecutor's office is investigating more than 300 possible cases of civilians killed by the Georgian military. Some of those may be Ossetian paramilitaries, but Human Rights Watch believes the figure of 300-400 civilians is a "useful starting point", which is not the same as HRW saying 300-400 were definitely killed. HRW is saying it is a useful starting point for the number of possible cases of civilians. --Xeeron (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted my previous edit you inserted 273 killed (not wounded but killed), also again you put back those old reports on the numbers of dead and as for the possible cases line, you didn't put it when the previous source by HRW said 44 killed, and then they had not even begon an investigation so 44 was a number based on information leaking from hospitals. In any case HRW is not the one that said possible cases but the Russian prosecutor's office and the Russians have been talking about that number of 365 for more than a month now.89.216.236.45 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three times no:

• I did not insert 273 killed, I inserted "less than 273 killed".
• I did not put back the old reports for HRW, I put them back because they were the only Memorial source (and I said so in my edit just above this one!).
• The source about 300-400 says that is a "starting point", but that refers to the sentence just before, which talks about possible deads, not sure deads.

I kindly ask you to read my edits carefully and not to misquote me. --Xeeron (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss it on the talk page. Since you brought it up, Russia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are already wikilinked. We are saying that the war was fought with "the Russian, South Ossetian, and Abkhazian militaries" hence we should wikilink the articles on these militaries. Otherwise change it to say "Russia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia" and leave out military. I don't have a preference as to which however some users keep changing military to militia and this is patently false for the reasons I explained in the summary. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since that is the first sentence of the article, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not linked prior, so it is even more important to link to the entity, not the military, just like Georgia and Russia are linked, not the Georgian or Russian army. I have no opinion on milita vs military (are those people full time paid soldiers, yes/no?), but I would remove either word from that position and replace it with separatists or something similar referring to Abk/SO, not just the armies.--Xeeron (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know why this revert happened and checked your contribs: 10 reverts in one minute? Did someone forget to add _bot at you name? Awesome speed there. --Xeeron (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that revert, my bad. Contrary to popular belief... I am a real human! Eric Wester (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made some very good and constructive edits on the article in the past. What is your opinion of the article's current state? Which chapters do you think are good enough and which should be improved? Do you think the article is objective and neutral enough? Which chapters do you think should be shortened and which should be expanded? Your opinion would be helpful in deciding what to do next.

First, the article has come a long, long way, from being an unordered storage of quotes with daily POV revert wars to something that actually resembles an encyclopediatic text. I think in some parts (e.g. the discussion about starting & reconstruction) the article is still in a phase where editors bring their statements and quotes, so later others can come and make a coherent text out of it.

Much of what I think still needs to be done, I put done in the recent post on the talk page. Apart from that, I want to go over the first parts and remove the bullet points that are still left and rewrite the "bullet point like" parts (on august 12 ..., on 13 ..., on 14 ...). On removing large parts of the "reactions" sections, I was simply waiting for tempers to die down so I don't start revert wars. The two biggest issues left in terms of copyediting are the humanitarian impact section and the sources. I have not yet had the courage to touch the first for POV reasons. The source issue is mostly due to me not having the time to go and check, merge and update ~400 sources, but this needs to be done eventually (actually I was hoping that a bot would come along and do the merging, but it seems that bot has not yet been invented heh). Also, removing sources that do not meet

WP:SOURCE might cause an uproar. For example, personally, I feel that in an article with such a multitude of sources, we do not need non-english sources (expect from a very few) ... however I can imagine what would happen if I start removing russian speaking sources. --Xeeron (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please remind what i did already write on SOwar talk page. SPIEGEL information end of August means the same what NYT et al. just now published in Nov. 2008. NYT drop names and get in details but the basics are known for mid-end of August ( SPIEGEL, Washington Post). Therefore it doesnt make sense to move SPIEGEL infos to another place as if a new story were told. ;) - Elysander (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiegel statement should probably be deleted because it is obsolete. Spiegel somehow seems to have misinterpreted the OSCE monitors' statements. The later BBC and NYT sources quote the monitors exactly. The are not "blaming Georgia for triggering the crisis" but simply describing their observations - to say that they are "blaming" someone is simply wrong. The Spiegel statement has no useful role in this article so I don't see why we should include it.

Offliner (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

[2] Does this new subsection "Casualties" make sense? 1) IMO the place chosen by Reneem yesterday (!) seems not the right one. 2) Except info about wounded general all (not sourced) infos are already available in info box. - So long as certain users ( often the same for 3 months now - sometimes blocked or temporarily banned) are trying to change the basics daily serious work seems not possible. Elysander (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of the better part of that section was not needed. You said it had been too large. It was even smaller than the section about the Gori bombings. That section contains almost all of the article itself on the bombings. It was almost a complete copy-paste. I left the link to the article on the overall Georgia-Ossetia conflict. There is no harm in leaving the section as it is, no harm at all.89.216.236.45 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except the fact that the full article is at some 160+k atm and as such pretty oversized. --Xeeron (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the reason to delete the whole section, especially unilaterally, without discussion.FeelSunny (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the Pocopocopocopoco moderate and non-POVed sourced words on Georgian-Ossetian conflict. instead you posted some of your own "correct" views. that violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources requirements. I reverted the article back to the Pocopocopocopocoprevious version. Please do not start edit wars no more.FeelSunny (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my comments

here? You are wrong about Wikipedia:Verifiability (my version included an excerpt of the text of the source), about Wikipedia:Citing sources (my version, unlike Pocopocopocopoco's does not misrepresent the source) and about starting the edit war (first revert was done by Pocopocopocopoco, not me). --Xeeron (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Please give your definition of "edit warring" and explain to me why your reverts (e.g. over the term "scuttling" or indeed what we both are currently doing over "controversy") does not constitute edit warring.
2. Please explain to me why I need to review
   WP:WEASEL
   . I find no weasel words in the sentence "The events during August 7, remain a matter of controversy".
3. Please explain why what I wrote "reach[es] a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources" as per
   WP:SYNTH
   .
4. If you review my contributions to the article, you will find that they are in absolutely all parts of the article and neither concetrated on that area, nor areas you edit.

As a general note, if you suggest a change on the talk page and 4 people disagree with your change, while not one comes forward to support the change, you should not introduce the change into the article. And if you introduce it, you should be aware that it will likely be reverted. --Xeeron (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xeeron, please stop your POV on the 2008 South Ossetia War Article. I have been very nice to you, but my patience with your edits is running out. You cannot simply put sources in the article that you like, merely because they were written by people holding PhD. And your attack on my, saying that I made up the 6,000 number, whereas it was in the article prior to my editing on it, is quite frankly nothing but an empty ad hominem. Your refusal to recognize NPOV, and your willingness to place anything pro-Georgian, no matter how poorly sourced and written into the article, as well as your edit-warring, are getting old. Please, for the sake of NPOV stop it now. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse NPOV with YOURPOV. The fact that sources do not agree to your very one-sided view of events does not make them invalid. And that you go out and say that scientific sources, written by people in a neutral country, who work in the field are NPOV, just because they do not adhere to your favorite view of what happened, should be cause for worry.

PS: I checked before making that post and checked again now. The 6,000 is nowhere in the article, so get your facts straight. --Xeeron (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 15,000 Russian soldiers. 9,000 were in Abkhazia. Check your math. BTW I discuss my edits before making them, I'd really wish you started doing the same. Care to show me how my view is very onesided? That I don't agree with people just because they have a PhD makes me biased? Suddenly if someone has a PhD, they're supposed to be my master? Oh, and do contribute to the discussion page please. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, I have more contributions on the talk page than you. Anyway, be assured that I plan to continue contributing there.

The article says "Est. at least 15,000 regulars in Georgia". Note that it is a) an estimate b) does not count South Ossetian forces c) is concerned with troops in Georgia (does that include or exclude SO and Ab?). The source is also no longer avaible, the link did not work for me. --Xeeron (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even read what you write? How can South Ossetian Forces not be counted as part of the Russian Forces in Georgia?! Wow, just wow. This is amazing. Furthermore yes it is an estimate, and Georgian forces are also an estimate, but it's the most accurate estimate possible. And it said 15,000 in Georgia, not just Georgia proper, which tears your argument to shreds. Saakashvili also said that Georgians won the war, can't wait for you to make that argument Daniel. And if you look at the current page on discussion, it shows that I discuss all of my edits, you do not. Discuss your edits either prior to make them, or at the very least as you make them. And stop placing POV sources into the article just because you like the writers, that is unacceptable Daniel. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I kindly ask you to put this at the articles talk page if you want to continue this discussion. --Xeeron (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you did ask kindly, I don't see why not. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When making an accusation, proof is usually golden. See my talkpage for further elucidation. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xeeron, writing the word "fucking" in all caps and bold on my talkpage, is really pointless, unless your intent was to amuse me. In that case - mission accomplished. And you are responsible for the sources you choose to include in the article, not the writers of these sources. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've been watching their talk page with some concern given the warnings, so I think a short holiday is due. EyeSerene^talk 14:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your [[3]] amounts to Wikipedia:Vandalism for the following reasons:

1. you have reverted my edit that took quite some time to make and was containing 3 additional external sources,
2. most of the information you have deleted as "uncorced" was based on the source you yoursef introduced in the article and all the links were included in the article.

I ask you yourself to undo the harm you have did and reintroduce my text back in full within one edit today, until 21:00 CET. Then, if you want, start editing it. Otherwise I will have to place a corresponding Wikipedia:Vandalism tag on your userpage. FeelSunny (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the comment he made on the article talk page [4]?

Offliner (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not vandalism, since I delivered reasons for the revert both in the edit comment and in the talk page. I can repeat and expand them here:

• Most importantly, you introduced several sentences that were copied word for word from the dansk source without attributing it or quotation marks. Whenever possible, we should not copy word for word, but if it is done, it needs to be attributed. Your edit violated
  WP:SOURCE
  .
• The edit unneccessarily lengthened several points that were already in the previous version, leaving the background section almost twice the size of the actual war section. In my opinion, such a long background is not needed, especially since all these events are described in detail in the linked
  Georgian-Ossetian conflict and Georgian–Ossetian conflict (1918–1920)
  articles.
• Finally, you left the article with a broken notice tag on top.

Due to this multiple problems, I reverted the edit. --Xeeron (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your personal opinion of the current status of the article? You didn't list any additional items on the to do list, so I suppose most of the article is OK for you. But do you think the article is biased in some way? What is the next thing you are probably going to do with the article? Do you have an opinion on this: [5] - why people are fighting over minor things instead of making major improvements? Usually when I post a to do list, nothing gets done unless I do it myself. As far as I can remember, there have been no real major improvements for a long time which hadn't been done by either me or you (correct me if I'm wrong.) If the reason is just the lack of time on other editors' part, then how do they still find the time to fight each other and argue about the article name?

Also, do you think that we should start removing sections like [6] from the talk page, which seem to contain only personal opinions and speculation and are not related to improving the article itself? Such discussion will only make the editors more annoyed of each other, which creates even more unnecessary arguments.

I am pretty busy atm (barly keeping up with just reading my watchlist), so a short answer, maybe I'll add something in a few days.

In my feeling, the more an editor tries to push a POV, the more time he/she will spend on the talk page and the less time actually making good edits. In the worst case, you'll see parts that are nicely written reverted back to a version with bad editor or grammar errors simply because the editor reverting cares only about POV, not about cleaning up the article. If people in the middle of the road are outnumbered by those on both extremes, the article will fluctuate around some "POV-mean", but not get better from an editing perspective.

PS: Don't mess with the talk page, much easier to just ignore that section. You would not stop them from opening a new section about the same topic anyway. --Xeeron (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of

Offliner (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like he is taking the early SO propaganda of 2000+ deads as true and adds his own theory of more people dying in the later stages of the conflicts than the earlier. Sufficient to say, until he brings a good source backing up his 10,000 statement, it should go nowhere near the article. --Xeeron (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was unsourced about it. Please tell me so I can put in a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenem (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 May 2009

The very fact that there was no reference makes it unsourced. All entries to wikipedia articles have to cite a reference. Otherwise, they are unsourced. --Xeeron (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't know if you saw but Eastern Europe editors just got thrashed.

I noticed the events occasionally, but I did not follow them closely. --Xeeron (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not happy about the inclusion of Nabucco and South Stream in the article. They are more relevant to

Best would be a map which shows all three pipelines, to reduce the amount of space taken. All three belong the the same strategic question: "will oil/gas be tranfered to Europe through or around Russia". While that question is not alone responsible for the worsening of Georgian-Russian relations before the war, nor alone responsible for the huge dollups of aid Georgia got from the EU and the US, it surely played a big role in both. And as such, it is strongly connected with the war. --Xeeron (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could insert a general statement into the background chapter, such as "The geopolitical importance of the region is further increased by pipeline projects such as Nabucco and South Stream." Still, I think mentioning just the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline should be enough. It makes the same general point.

Offliner (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is not my invention. It's a well established military history concept. If you are going to keep on editing military history articles, please learn what the basic concepts are:

Baptism by Fire in WWI: http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/?product_id=1098 Baptism by Fire in the Vietnam War: http://historyofwarfare.blogspot.com/2008/10/military-history-and-warfare-strategic.html Baptism by Fire in Iraq: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-117260943.html Baptism by Fire in WWII, of nurses: http://historyinvideo.alexanderstreet.com/View/526289

Shall I keep going? I mean I thank you for saying that "Baptism by Fire" is my invention, that makes me really cool, but unfortunately I have to be honest as a historian, and cannot take the credit for it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we really need this article? It's an obvious

As I said on the deletion page, I moved the article because everyone argees that the old title is bad, the decision whether or not to delete is unaffected by that. I would need at least to read that similar article about Abkhazia before making up my mind, so I haven't commented either way yet. --Xeeron (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or you will be reported. Thanks. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the noticeboard was archived. I'm still up for RfC if you want to do it. Please respond on my talkpage. Thank you. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talkpage. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your version of the

I dont know. Sometimes I get the feeling that it is strategy. Making big changes (without discussion), then accusing those who revert them of not discussing their edits. And similar hypocritical actions. Unfortunately, it works: Most reasonable editors leave the article alone after running into him on the talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[8]
He's essentially accused me of everything from meatpuppetry to page hovering- you as well, and FuturePerfect. I'm not good at arguing. It makes me feel all itchy. I just thought you should know what's up. FluffyPug (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was away from editing for a bit, I missed that exchange while it happened, but I am not surprised at all. His behavior there mirrors the way he has edited for more than a year now. --Xeeron (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You or someone with your username has voted in m:Global sysops/Vote but you don't have a SUL account. Please merge your accounts or add a link to your Meta user page from your local user page (and viceversa) to confirm your identity, or your vote may be struck. Thank you, Nemo 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Francesca-something was a troll, now indef-blocked. I think an admin beat me to modifying the talk page to remove the trolling comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:2010 Winter Olympics medal table. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Reformed Editor (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One could get blocked for asserting that "You are too juvenile to fathom that"? Or personal attacks like "Maybe you were referring to the irony of your attempt to attack my argument but failing to do so because of your stark dearth of intelligence"? That is indeed something that to keep in mind while editing ... except, those were your words, not mine... --Xeeron (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know your opinion concerning

Please answer my talkback on 2008 SO war.--RM (Be my friend) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the

I cleaned up the lead a good bit. Please have a look at my proposal on the talk page about separating the Ossetia and Abkhasia wars. There are arguements to be found in favor and against, but it would not make sense to do any major work now if it gets implemented. --Xeeron (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created

Btw, have you noticed there is a whole book available about the war for free? [9] We could it to insert some missing info about the military action on the Abkhazian front, for example. I think I will some work at User:Nanobear/Abkhazian front before going to mainspace. Nanobear (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xeeron. 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]

Hello, Xeeron. 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]

G'day Xeeron, we're doing a little housekeeping with the WikiProject Military history incubator, and just had a query about Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/2008 South Ossetia war. As you are not very active, and there is only one other member who is also not active, we are looking to archive this sub-project. The page won't be deleted, it will just be removed from the incubator. Any objections? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, that project is dead as a dodo. --Xeeron (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xeeron. 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]