User talk:Superfly94

April 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at World Mission Society Church of God. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Generally, a resumption of edit warring by a previously blocked user may result in a new block of increased duration and without warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST
 Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at World Mission Society Church of God. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

NO NEUTRALITY
I have clearly wrote in the edit summary that the article has no neutral points, and yet you still insist that they are neutral. Not only I, but other users mentioned about them. When User Galemw2 explained clearly about why the sources are unreliable you and Peter1007 neglected to answer to the User's explanation of why they are unreliable. Don't seem to get your point: "You have already stated that the references are unreliable but they most likely are not ALL reliable." If you were saying that they are not ALL unreliable, you must explain why they are not ALL unreliable in the talkpage. It was the same for the Spanish Wikipedia. Peter1007 neglected to answer the questions in the talkpage and left the page with unneutral facts and opinions from biased websites. You and Peter1007 seems to own this article though you all insist that you have nothing to do with this religion movement. Wikipedia does not consider other religions "cults." Please edit in a neutral perspective and stop using sources that are biased. Thanks. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Galemw2 put those questions down yesterday and today. There are a lot of them.  Do you think that perhaps Peter1007 and Sam Sailor might be taking some time to put together some answers together so they can answer them all at once instead of piecemeal?  It would certainly make things easier to follow for anyone trying to read it.  As for the actual meat of the ASH article, I have nothing to do with its editing, other than to revert it to Sam Sailor's last edit and maybe a bit of grammar.  I am not saying that their references are neutral, reliable or not.  What I AM saying is that you should at least show a bit of respect and acknowledge the hard work that was put into increasing the information to this article and ask them to discuss why they chose certain references instead of just deleting everything and going back to your own edit which, I hate to say, is just way too sparse.  I am completely astounded with the amount of work that's been put into this article and am still wading through all of it myself!  You must have some pretty mad skills to be able to go through every single one of the references over the span of a couple of days.  Superfly94 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I already knew about their references before (Some of them you already tried to use). They're way too ancient. Did you even check if the sources are neutral or not according to the Policy of Wikipedia? If you didn't, why are you agreeing with Peter1007 and Sam Sailor? You yourself tried to put some of the references that they have used/ You know that is not right to put unneutral points if you know about the what is considered as unbiased unneutral article.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you like to refer to WP:NPOV so often, here are a few parts of the policy you might find interesting.


 * 1) Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
 * This doesn't mean that the website itself has to be neutral, but that the information used throughout the whole article is proportional, thus achieving a NPOV.


 * 1) Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias.
 * It's so important the article states it twice.


 * 1) Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.
 * 2) As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. 
 * 3) In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
 * Now, this is by no means exhaustive, but are parts of the policy that I felt needed to be brought forward. You are throwing around things like ownership, NPOV, disruptive editing, etc, and I don't think you really know what any of this means as you have been just as guilty, if not more so than those you are accusing.  As for those references that have been used that were part of 3O and DR processes, those were on the WMSCOG article, not the ASH article.  The same decision wouldn't necessarily apply.  Also, as I stated earlier, there is a plethora of info that I'm trying to get through and I do plan on bringing up the two items of contention on the WMSCOG page.  But I would like to take the time to get all my ducks in a row first.  I'm sorry if I'm not moving fast enough for you. Superfly94 (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Solely seem to be biased? So you think its "right" to use unreliable sources? Then why are there points made in the Policy NOT to use unreliable sources? So you think you can use ANY sources to support ANY articles? Your reasonings don't make sense at all. There's a discussion going on the talkpage and you don't have any reasons that they are NOT ALL Unreliable. The edit that was made by you, Sam Sailor, and Peter1007 has no single neutrality which has to be NEWLY edited. You all blanked the page without mentioning NONE on the talkpage. You all seem to own the articles. Not only I, but many other users have made their points about this, and yet you are neglecting. It just seems that you just want to slander a religion with hatred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyinthehouse (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nancy, if you see a source that you believe is unreliable it is up to you to point it out specifically and explain why you believe it to be so, preferably with a reliable source that is not associated to any church so that it is not self-serving. Kind of like what Galemw2 has done.  This allows any editor to research and address whatever specific topic within the issues that they might find interesting/challenging.  By blanking a whole article and saying EVERYTHING is unreliable you a) don't give anyone else a chance to address any specific issues that you might have actually missed (like I just stated) and b) insult the work that someone may have done to extend the article and add in some pretty interesting and in-depth information.  As for your assertion that only three people are doing the editing and the rest of the Wikipedia world disagrees with us, I guess that would explain why there are people who, up to this point, have had nothing to do with the ASH or WMSCOG articles, are reverting your and Watts9595's edits to Peter1007 and Sam Sailor's.  I look forward to seeing some of your specific examples so we can exchange sites and debates things in a much more polite manner. Superfly94 (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Honourary → Honorary
Please see the discussion at User talk:Mogism, especially the first three edits. Don't miss the Canadian government's spelling quiz answers, Set 3. Chris the speller  yack  13:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reprinted wiki-articles as a source for the wiki-articles
You should be more careful when choosing your sources, specifically when citing a source that you have never had a chance to read by yourself. A lot of fraudulent publications is sold over Amazon and the like, and you cannot simply mislead potential readers by suggesting them to buy from con artists a reprinted wiki-article. "Jesse Russell" is a notorious code-name for wiki-articles reprinted from Wikipedia and sold to naive buyers, just google it or check the article on this issue. Or simply enlarge the fradulent "book" that you are trying to insert as a source into the article, and look at the inscription in the red circle: it reads "High quality content by Wikipedia articles". -- Prokurator11 (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)