User talk:Wiki1609

Welcome!

Hello, Wiki1609, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ITAQALLAH 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think to cite my personal faith as a reason for apparently being 'biased' is distasteful and an unacceptable jibe here on Wikipedia, please see WP:CIVIL. making your own conclusions- and presenting them to the reader- is original research and contrary to the principles of this encyclopedia. the previous figures have been sourced to traditional sources. if the numbers really are "probably" lower, then surely there must be an academic resource stating that, which then you can use as a citation to support your insertion. thanks. ITAQALLAH 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Logo rund.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo rund.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Tig10.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tig10.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ww2[edit]

Hey, I know you feel strongly about Russia and you could be right, but you need to watch your mouth kid. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I don't care what country youre from, but what you said about Americans isn't smart. We certainly didn't lose as many people as the Soviets, but we certainly had a hell of a homefront here in the US to give Russia and Britain enough guns to fight the war. And let's not forget the USSR was bad at one point as it declared war unprovokedly on Finland, and invaded Poland. Youre saying leave out the friggen war against Japan, well the US would have been able to divert many of its troops the the ETO if it didn't have to divert forces and supplies to the forces against Japan, but oh wait, did the USSR invade Japanese held territory? Oh yeah, they did with 5 DAYS REMAINING IN THE WAR. --Mack540 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken crescent[edit]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Broken crescent, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Stormie 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BrokenCrescent.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:BrokenCrescent.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Volkssturm poster.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Volkssturm poster.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Volkssturm training.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Volkssturm training.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo rund.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo rund.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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]

Elenium (band)[edit]

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 the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chef[edit]

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[edit]

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

Russia discussion[edit]

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)

Inline references[edit]

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]

All roads lead to Rome[edit]

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. Tourskin (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll make sure to add that footnote in. Tourskin (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BrokenCrescent.jpg[edit]

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]

Broken Crescent[edit]

I've marked Broken Crescent with notability concerns, as it currently doesn't reference any third party reliable sources in order to prove that the mod is notable. Articles that don't reference sources to demonstrate notability are likely to be deleted. You might want to take a look at WP:VG for help[, support and discussion on writing videogame articles. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine size at battle of yarmouk and Nicolle's estimates[edit]

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]

Battle of Yarmouk[edit]

You reinserted the cleanup template for the Battle of Yarmouk. As per my explanation for removing the template, the article satisfies Wikipedia's style guidelines and therefore no longer requires the template message. If you feel there are still issues with the article I would suggest a more accurate template be added with a specific message to other readers as to what still needs to be done. Try looking through this list of alternate templates to find a message that would convey what still needs to be done with the article in terms of cleanup. If you have any questions I am happy to help. Thanks! Barkeep^{Chat | $} 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Volkssturm training.JPG[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Volkssturm training.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kam Solusar (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:0_A.D._Album_image.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:0_A.D._Album_image.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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]

Image:0AD_Album_image2.jpeg[edit]

I have tagged Image:0AD_Album_image2.jpeg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of yarmouk and your current edits.[edit]

hi, i was here to request you to stay away from further editing the yarmouk article, every thing has been decided in the discussion fourm and what else is remianing now ? Its encyclopedia man, grow up ! you cant put here what you desire, if you wanna do so thn make one of your's own... i was woundering that how can you reappear after your that white lie "disclosed" about the size of roman army in various sources, including "your's" nicolle during the discussion ! it was really a humiliation for a honest person, actually more then that ... if i was there at your place i would have left wikipedia for good due to that humiliation ... man you said nicolle mentioned 25,000 n in reality he mentioned 100,000 .... its misrepresentaion and fraud. man, i really think that you are not normal. This is a request accept it, or come again in the discussion fourm, i am again ready to argue with you (though its use less! ) or other wise i had to take any serious action against you. sorry if it sounds offensive, but man, have a life and chill.......

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]

Image copyright problem with Image:German sniper screenshot.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:German sniper screenshot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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]

Talk to the PHAND[edit]

The preposterous theory of an "arranged" attack, located where it was, is out of place to the page, & is exhaustively covered at PHAND, since questions of lack of benefit to Britain & the necessity to accept irrationality to credit it as true are way out of scope for the Attack page. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:17, 20 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]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nemmersdorf roadsign.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nemmersdorf roadsign.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

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]

Proposed deletion of V28[edit]

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 deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stormbay (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:CIA Memo.JPG[edit]

File:CIA Memo.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:CIA Memo.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:CIA Memo.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Volkssturm poster.JPG[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Volkssturm poster.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Werner Wrangel[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Werner Wrangel at the 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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to 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]