User talk:SyriaWarLato

April 2015
Stop the WP:EDITWAR please. Discuss any issues at Talk:Garissa University College attack. Edit warring can get you blocked. Read WP:3RR. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * i understand. thank you.SyriaWarLato (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you understood you would partake in the discussion I initiated in the discussion section instead of continuing this war!120.62.24.165 (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 3rd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade
 * added links pointing to Komsomolsk, Argun and Shali


 * Battle of Guam (1944)
 * added a link pointing to 77th Infantry Division


 * Battle of Kwajalein
 * added a link pointing to 111th Infantry Regiment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Flags
Please see MOS:FLAG for the proper use of flag icons. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Flags
Please read and understand WP:MOSFLAG. Thank you. --Denniss (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're going to get yourself a block of some kind should you persist with this behaviour. I really don't want to do that, because you're a generally helpful contributor. If you want to add flag icons, you will have to overturn MOSFLAG first. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Number of Delta force operators
What is you're opposition to number of operators in the delta force I added?Citadel48 (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * there are a multitude of estimations. one estimation is not more valid than the other, therefore doesn't belong in infobox. put your estimation in the section with the others. SyriaWarLato (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide me with sources stating other estimates, thank you.Citadel48 (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delta Force page, Organization and structure section. SyriaWarLato (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't bite
Hi there. I know that you're just voicing your opinion over at talk:Serena Williams, but I'd remind you that some of the editors your dealing with over there are quite new. Some of your comments look to me to be a little dismissive. Could you consider toning it down a little bit as to not bite the newbies. Thanks! Agtx (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Soviet–Japanese War (1945)
7,483 KIA is false report.--123.140.222.74 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

GAO report on special operations numbers
You've mistaken the funding authorization numbers of specific units with the total number of particularly qualified personnel. In some instances you're adding numbers which are not provided in the ref at all. If you're confused about the report or what it says please feel free to message my here or on my talk page. GraniteSand (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1st Guards Motor Rifle Division, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Byelorussia, Kurland and Aleksandrovsk. 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) 08:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict
''units1/units2/units3 – optional – the units or formations involved. If a large number of distinct formations is present, it may be better to reference an order of battle in the body of the article than to include the entire list in this field. The units3 field can only be used if the combatant3 field is set.''

I think your edit went a little over the top. Is there an OOB you can add to or start?Keith-264 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden template
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. It appears that you're up to four reverts in 24 hours, which could lead to you being blocked. Please gain consensus for your proposed change, and don't just edit war it back in. Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of A Shau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CIDG. 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) 09:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 8th Infantry Regiment (United States), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam War
If you believe that sources are outdated that you need to provide new WP:RS and/or discuss on the Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * that would be a waste of time. newer more in dept sources should be the priority. SyriaWarLato (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the newer source is from vietnam itself. not some estimate from an american who doesn't have military/demographic records at hand doe to cold war.SyriaWarLato (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am reverting your edits again as unreferenced, if you revert them again, I will initiate Admin action. Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I gave my reason. what's yours?SyriaWarLato (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said the four million figure is strange (inconsistent with previous widely reported official figure) and reported only by the BBC, in an anonymous article with no details. I can see several explanations for this number. 1) The MINISTRY OF LABOR, WAR INVALIDS AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS reported a further 2 million "permanently disabled". It's possible the BBC misinterpreted 2m civ killed + 2m invalids as 4 million civ deaths. 2)It was a typo 3) 4 million civ deaths was the upper bound. If the reason is (3), then this is citable, but of course we need to know this is indeed the case. With respect to the BMJ and 2 million civ-death figure from Vietnam, the article cites only their midrange figures, not the upper bounds (if the sources indeed give upper bounds). You can try researching to see if these sources give upper bounds. All in all, while I agree that some of the article's figures are ridiculous and outdated, I recommend adding recent sources, rather than edit-warring to remove sourced material.Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the original source for the number: A mistranslated AFP report that double-counts Hanoi's rough estimate of 2 million civilian deaths in order to advance the opinion that (paraphrasing) "US imperialism is worse than Hitler."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's translated correctly as best as I can tell. If there is any error, its the AFP's. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Mztourist (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Vietnam War
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of defunct special forces units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CIDG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Excessive flags
I have raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Mztourist (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Vietnam War again
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mztourist (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Vietnam War. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. Your contributions begin to raise the question that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and when the block expires, I urge you to edit in other areas of the encyclopedia to avoid potentially being indefinitely blocked. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)