User talk:-Ilhador-

Welcome!

Hello, -Ilhador-, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions, Ilhador. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps your colleagues here understand the intention of your edit. It is also keeps the edit history of the page less cluttered.

Another note on editing: It will also be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. Regards, Eric ^talk 14:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK.-Ilhador- (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am new in wikipedia, and I would like to talk to you, so you can give me some advises whenever I need them. Can I count with you?? Thanks a lot!--Tlilmiztli (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Duchy of Württemberg, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Electorate and Sabina (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) 10:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Emirate of Córdoba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Córdoba (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) 10:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Electorate of Hessen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electorate (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) 10:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosson (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) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburg-Schwerin

I don't understand how this and the renaming and splitting of the former article helps readers. Supposedly we are distinguishing between two entities that existed before and after 1815 (but with essentially the same territory, the same government, and the same person as monarch before and after those dates); but the narrative in the Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin article continues beyond 1815, and the narrative in the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin article begins before 1815, so we are not even internally consistent on this division. It seems to me the only thing you have accomplished is insult the reader by insinuating that they do not know enough about the topic they are searching for, and making them jump through an extra hoop in order to find information. (I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but perhaps you could reconsider whether your edits had unintended results.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Hello, again, Ilhador. If you must replace perfectly good links with disambiguation pages, as with Hessen-Kassel and before that Mecklenburg-Schwerin, then at least please:

Check for and fix incoming links to the old title, as per WP:FIXDABLINKS, so that readers can access the correct article. These two edits along broke links in over 1,000 other Wikipedia articles!
Format your disambiguation pages as suggested at WP:MOSDAB, with one and only one link per line.

Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Hamburg

Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Duchy of Strelitz

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Hamburg

Electorate of Württemberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kingdom

Siege of Constantine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Constantine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new message at this talk page

See here Talk:Holy_Roman_Empire#Merger_proposal

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Ferdinand Foch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Clemenceau

Margraviate of Baden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Balance of power

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited Kingdom of Württemberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oberndorf (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) 10:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Listing what under HRE/WPFC scope

First, I would like to state that I apologize for not contacting you earlier. Next, I'll reiterate what I mean about adding all of the significant articles under the scope. What I mean is just add the ones that were obviously important to the HRE. For example, I figured since Berlin was listed (not just the history, but the city itself), we should add Prague, Vienna, and possibly Aachen there as well. Those cities had much more significance over the course of the existance of the HRE than Berlin. Now if you want to talk about removing Berlin, than that's fine. I still feel that people (esp. royalty and nobility) and events that led to changing the landscape of the HRE (i.e. wars) should be covered. We shouldn't cover every city, person, or event that occured during that period. Not even close. But there are significant events not covered that shoud be. Just take a look at some of the French & German HRE articles. I'm sure we can discuss which ones belong and which ones don't.

I did add the Hussite Wars and Jan Hus onto the scope during this past week, but it didn't show up under what was listed. I'll just continue finding material to improve the articles listed. Thanks for reading LeftAire (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I'm sceptic about this. People will eventually add them without any criteria, it's very easy to do it and when you remove one there's always someone to re-add them.-Ilhador- (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. When you recently edited Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strelitz (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) 10:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.7.204 (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin

This article should be deleted. Regarding its factual accuracy, I have to note that the duchy has two year starts: 1621 and 1701 (in 1621 Mecklenburg was divided into the two duchies of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Güstrow); this fact is not reflected in the article. Regarding the language of the article it is certainly not English; for example, what do you mean by "Frederick William and Adolphus Frederick II divided the Duchy of Mecklenburg between Schwerin and Strelitz by Emperor Joseph I"? --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The duchy of Mecklenburg was divided and reunited many times in history.-Ilhador- (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what was the role of Joseph I in that? Can you find a source other than Encyclopædia Britannica? As it stands, the article is unclear and self-contradicting. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that sentence.-Ilhador- (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.10 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz copy edit

Hi. I'm attempting the copy edit you requested. However, it contains this sentence:

The memorandum marked a dynastic house contract, the last and definitive Mecklenburg state separation entered into the national history and sealed with the Treaty of Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, was formed in accordance with § 2 of the Treaty of multiple rule parts, Adolphus Frederick received the territory of Mecklenburg-Strelitz as a duchy in its own right, the Principality of Ratzeburg on the Mecklenburg Western border south of Lübeck, the Herrschaft Stargard in Mecklenburg southeast with the cities of Neubrandenburg, Friedland, Woldegk, Strelitz, Burg Stargard, Fürstenberg/Havel and Wesenberg, plus the Komturei Mirow and Komturei Nemerow.

which is unintelligible. I can find no clue as to the meaning from the German, French or Italian articles on the subject. Please could you explain it in short sentences. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I think I've figured it out. Please check that it's all right now. --Stfg (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Any further reverts towards FactStraight will be considered immediate grounds for a block. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna enter a edit war with anyone, it's just this guy who looks like spent his day reverting my edits. I could let this go if he hadn't blanked some perfectly good articles I had a hard time writing. I'll be just fine if i could ignore him for the rest of my life.-Ilhador- (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have currently asked him to stop, please let me know if there are any more issues, if he continues to edit war, he will be subject to the same blocks you would be. Just in case you didn't know, this was related to a sockpuppet investigation that was filed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggsetions regarding Franciszek Młokosiewicz

Thanks for Franciszek Młokosiewicz. Let me point out a few things to facilitate your future work.

I see you are not using inline references, but you are using Google Books. Check http://reftag.appspot.com - it will make adding inline refs to gbooks a breeze. I strongly suggest you spend the two minutes needed to drastically improve the look of your article with that tool.

When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK.

Next. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject. You do not have to rate the article if you don't want to, other WikiProject members will do it. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow thm to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further.

And if you are interested in Polish military history, may I suggest joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History and Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland.

Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I formated the web refs with WP:REFLINKS. If you expand it a little more, it will make a good DYK (I'd suggest adding a proper WP:LEAD and separating it from the main body). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Free Imperial City of Kempten

Hello -Ilhador-. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Free Imperial City of Kempten, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an uncontroversial move, use requested moves instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Electoral Salzburg

Hello -Ilhador-. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Electoral Salzburg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an uncontroversial move, use requested moves instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE requests

Hello -Ilhador-. I see that on 12 July you both tagged German Peasants' War with {{copyedit}} and put it on the GOCE requests page. Please would you in future do one or the other, not both, as it risks that two editors come to the article from different directions and trip over one another. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know about that. I thought all requests were tagged too. Thanks for the advice.-Ilhador- (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In fact we hadn't documented it. I've added something to the page just now. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of peasant revolts

Can you please show the decency of explaining this page move? You have moved this page twice to a nonsensical title without once bothering to explain your reasoning. That is not only moronic, it is insulting to other editors. The title to which you moved the article implies that the article is discussing one event, i.e. a Peasants War, but this is not the case, instead, the article is a list of peasant revolts occurring over the course of hundreds of years, which is why the original title made more sense ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive victories

What's the deal with removing "decisive" from infoboxes? The concept is supported by article text which is cited. We don't require cites in the lead section and by extension we should not require the same of a summary statement in the infobox if that statement summarizes cited article text. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history#Mass removal of the word "decisive" from infoboxes. You might want to answer there so that a larger discussion can occur. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Galicia‎. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Stop edit warring across battle articles. You will be blocked if you continue. Please discuss instead. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your electoral edits / sockpuppetry case

I have noticed that since January 2012 your agenda has been to automatically substitute the use of Electoral for the adjective Palatine and promote use of Palatine only in the noun-form of Palatinate -- unlike standard English (which prefers, e.g., Elector Palatine). You seem to pursue the absurd goal of eradicating the use of the use of the phrases "Electoral Saxony" and "Electoral Bavaria" in the English Wikipedia. User:FactStraight and User:Kelisi and I had reverted your edits but then you started reverting us en masse and eventually engaged in an edit war with me by using the following IP addresses:

You keep conflating a historical region of Germany with a specific historical polity; you also keep inserting such syntactic monstrosities as:

"with Electorate of the Palatinate"
"to Electorate of the Palatinate"
"by Electorate of the Palatinate"
"and Electorate of the Palatinate"
"that Electorate of the Palatinate"
"of Electorate of the Palatinate"
"in Electorate of the Palatinate"
"from Electorate of the Palatinate"
"by Electorate of the Palatinate"
"under Electorate of the Palatinate"

Further evidence:

I am planning to take your case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; I would like an explanation first though. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy deletion request on a page that I created, a sock accusation based on a malicious allegation that I was declared innocent and a quote showing me accepting a requested move. Your obsession with me is really disturbing. You should go out in the sunlight.-Ilhador- (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for suspecting you of being a sock of the notorious, indefinitley blocked LouisPhilippeCharles. That suspicion, however, was erroneous -- not malicious, but based on the very pattern of edits that Omnipaedista has identified above. I, too, would appreciate an explanation of what obviously appears to you to be a perfectly appropriate campaign, but which is bewildering to others of us who do not consider the nouns "Palatinate" or "Electorate" appropriate or needed replacements on Wikipedia for the English adjectives "Electoral" and "Palatine". Would you please share your thinking in this matter? Perhaps an understanding or compromise could be agreed upon that saves everyone future hassles. FactStraight (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your move

I have undone your move of List of French monarchs to "King of France"> The article exists at the title it does because the list includes people who were not strictly "King of France", but were still monarchs of France. Please discuss the matter at Talk:List of French monarchs before doing such a change again. Thanks! --Jayron32 15:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your moves

It is obvious you have taken a hobby in moving pages to incorrect or illogical titles without any consensus or talk, and I must inform you that you are only being disruptive. You will find a complaint for intervention at the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans will be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 84th Infantry Regiment (France)

The article 84th Infantry Regiment (France) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poor writing, no sources at all. Did WP:BEFORE, still none. Only directs me to stuff about Roblox, Total War: Napoleon, and other games.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ray 05:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]