User talk:Xnacional

__NOINDEX__

December 2008
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''On 9/11 article. Not a reliable source. Consider yourself warned.''  Veggy  ( talk ) 03:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lexlutsuperman.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Lexlutsuperman.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. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Star Wars: The Power of the Force
A tag has been placed on Star Wars: The Power of the Force requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --EEMIV (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Please join us in the discussion of your recent edits. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. –xenotalk 14:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template:Star Wars. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''I suspect you made the anon. IP edit. Failing to initiate talk-page discussion justifying the link's removal is disruptive.'' --EEMIV (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Star Wars. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''Consensus is clear that the sequel trilogy link is appropriate. Stop removing it.'' --EEMIV (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Operation Together. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the [ page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''Please address concern raised on dab page's talk-page. Your habit of reverting/removing content without attempting discussion is disruptive; please stop or go somewhere else.'' --EEMIV (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Operation Together. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --EEMIV (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Operation Together, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ''Abide by the talk-page and article history consensus. You are the sole voice opposing retaining this dab page. You're free to put in a request for an outside opinion.'' --EEMIV (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comparative photo of digital manipulation in Return of Jedi article
Hi. Since you uploaded the current image, I would like to invite you to this discussion:. Have a agood day. Solopiel (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bond composers
There may be a limited case for restoring Bill Conti to the list of Bond composers, but to put him back in and then remove David Arnold is ridiculous.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

George Martin did only one. Xnacional (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

David Arnold has been the prime James Bond composer since Pierce Brosnan took over the role, essentially replacing John Barry as the first composer of choice for Bond films. In fact, in the only Bond film since '95 that Arnold did not completely score, he still worked on the song performed in the closing credits. If you have some compelling reason for restoring Bill Conti, say so on the article Talk page (which you seem to have a history of avoiding doing), but for heaven's sake, do NOT remove David Arnold again!! --WickerGuy (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the edit-summary, George Martin composed one Bond film Live and Let Die, and produced (i.e. arranged and orchestrated the background) the Bond theme song for two other films (essentially the same thing he did for most of the Beatles' albums), thus making him at least partially responsible for more than one Bond film music. This includes one of the most famous, the song Goldfinger.

See the album "produced by George Martin" and its liner notes, and George Martin's website. (And please don't resort to implications that GM is lying or any such nonsense.) Producers do background arrangements but don't generally get composing credits if they aren't responsible for the main melody of the piece. (George Martin is for example responsible for all the symphonic sections of the Beatles album Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band but is not credited as composer.) It is well-known in the industry that George Martin did the background orchestrations for the theme songs Goldfinger and From Russia with Love, although the melodies are by John Barry.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you keep deleting David Arnold from the list whenever you restore Bill Conti, it is very difficult to believe your edits are in good faith but instead have the air of being tendentious.


 * See also the book "Can't buy me love: the Beatles, Britain, and America" by Jonathan Gould- Page 285--WickerGuy (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:TheRealFennShysa
Dear Xnacional, See User_talk:TheRealFennShysa

Caption punctuation
Please read this and stop re-inserting periods at the end of captions that are not sentences. --EEMIV (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider this a warning for your persistent and deliberate MOS violations. This can lead to further editing blocks just as easily as your edit-warring about the Hannibal article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Taliban active fighters strength
On 3 March 2010, US estimate that 36,000 Afghan taliban militants are active in Afghanistan. These are some links.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/03-Mar-2010/MajorGeneral-Richard-Barrons-puts-Taliban-fighter-numbers-at-36000-report

http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

I think that first one link is best.Because The Nation newspaper is Pakistan's most popular newspaper and its also too much femous on internet.

Update the talibans strength and total strength of all militants which is 98,100 total militants in war in afghanistan article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29119.152.29.16 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you make another revert to the article, you will be blocked again.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You Deleted Some of my Edits to the ISAF International Security Assistance Force Article
I justed updated the two tables in the ISAF article to include the latest NATO/ISAF placemat. I use a spreadsheet to calcuate all of my numbers and I use exact totals. You removed the exact totals and replaced them with rounded totals. Now the numbers no longer add up. You did not include any comments to explain your edits. I believe it is better to use exact totals instead of rounded totals. I would like to hear your perspective on this.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I added a rounded total and an actual total per discussion resolution. Let me know if you are comfortable with the changes I made. Please don't enter into an edit war. If you don't like my changes then please tell me and I will make the necessary changes or completedly delete what I added. Unfortunately, some of the older NATO/ISAF placemats are not rounded. Also, sometimes the placemat is rounded up and sometimes it is rounded down. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Operation Together, you will be blocked from editing. --EEMIV (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi, you will be blocked from editing. Continuing to obstinately make disruptive edits to the Return of the Jedi and Operation Together articles/dab page will rapidly lead to yet another, longer block. --EEMIV (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Star Wars, you will be blocked from editing. --EEMIV (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Batman Forever
-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Your persistent and deliberately obnoxious edits to the Star Wars template, Return of the Jedi, and A New Hope constitute vandalism. Please go away and find other kids to play with.'' --EEMIV (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request(Coalition Casualties Update)
1,733 killed(US:1047, UK: 281, Others: 405)

9,967+ wounded(US: 5,629, UK: 3,608 , Canada : +400 , Germany: 166, Australia: 120 , Romania: 44 )

Please update war in Afghanistan(2001-present) article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

119.152.61.170 (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you...
...offer any sort of rationale as to why you persist in removing information and violating the MOS? Is there some motivation beyond simply tweaking editors? --EEMIV (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --EEMIV (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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.
 * Although technically you were not in violation of the 3-revert rule, you have been edit warring across multiple articles over a period of time. Please know that this is considered disruptive and not acceptable.  If you would like to propose controversial changes, please discuss them on the talk page.  In this particular case, it appears there is a clear consensus against your proposal and you should not repeatedly make your change unilaterally. --B (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've initiated another 3RR complaint about you. That you immediately return to making edits against consensus immediately after your block lapsed is indicative to me that you have no interest in working collaboratively. Once again: please just go away. --EEMIV (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) When this block expires, please propose your changes at Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi and reason with your fellow volunteer editors. Edit warring against apparent consensus is not good practice. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Big surprise (not), Xnacional immediately returned to his edit warring pattern as soon as his recent block expired, with no attempts at discussion. I've already reported him again. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked you for two weeks following a report at WP:AN3. If you continue to revert war upon the expiration of this block, it will only result in further blocks. --B (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated edit warring across multiple Star Wars related articles despite 2 previous blocks for exactly the same pattern of behaviour and multiple warnings less than 48 hours after the expiry of a 2-week block.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Star Wars, you may be blocked from editing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep edit warring in WWIV in the same way you do as user:205.211.213.218. Please stop. Links are for navigation between articles. If you think that a subject shuoldn't be included in a Wikipedia article, the proper thing to do is to discuss that on the article's talk page or to take the article to WP:AFD. Removing links is vandalism.Sjö (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)