User talk:Vanguard53
|
Disambiguation link notification for May 4[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clearwater, British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clearwater River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Claim of bias on Yagan[edit]
Hi Vanguard53
I reverted your edits to Yagan, as they were unsubstaniated, incorrectly formatted and shouldn't be in the body of the article. I presume you were trying for a {{template}}, along the lines of {{Systemic bias}} or possibly {{Globalize/Australia}}. Such templates should be at the top of the article, or the disputed section, and should be accompanied by your rationale on the talk page. Fan
| talk 15:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
On Bismarck and her legality[edit]
Hello. It's a common misconception that Bismarck and Tirpitz violated any treaties. In fact, by 1937, the treaty system had fallen apart due to Japan's refusal to sign the 1936 London treaty, which put the escalator clause for battleships of up to 45,000 LT into effect. And the Anglo-German treaty was generally viewed to have brought the Kriegsmarine into the Treaty system; as a result, the 45,000 LT escalator clause applied to Germany's Bismarck class just the same as it made the American Iowa class legal. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
March 2014[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Milan Baroš, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. "I Think that the Photo shown is Not Milan Baros" is not really sufficient reason to change an article's caption, in the future if you are unsure about the identity of people in photos please open a discussion at the talk page. Thank you. C679 20:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
August 2014[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Jeannette Rankin, you may be blocked from editing. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Until you made that edit I had never even heard of the woman. You can hardly expect me to be aware of every minor politician in a foreign country such as the US. Your edit was silly. Of course if everyone had voted the same as her, and fortunately they didn't, then life today would probably be much different and worse. The point is Wikipedia does not do what if. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand your last comment. Was "So What are You? A species os Wikipedia Policeman?" supposed to be 'So What are You? A species of Wikipedia Policeman?" If so then no I ain't the Wikipedia:WikiPolice but I am a Wikipedia:Janitor. 12:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm SummerPhD. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Manuel Bartlett seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Vanguard53. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 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)