User talk:Frenditor

Welcome!

Hello, Frenditor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Indian Territory in the American Civil War‎. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BusterD (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Source

Hello Mr. Frenditor is this source have to be in English source?And are you owner of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahkulu (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and No. Frenditor (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Billy Mitchell, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cannae

Hi, Frenditor. Some sources agree, some disagree. Sources can be found for both opinions, and some will contradict each other outright. I doubt if we're going to find sufficient overall agreement or consistency to justify any form of simplistic conclusion fit for an infobox - which is why I hate the damn things. The problem here lies not this or that source, but with the simplistic infobox parameters. I'd like to suggest that we do away with the problem along with the "result" parameter. The issue (decisive vs tactical) crops up with tedious frequency precisely because it's moot, and will remain eternally so. For good reason. Haploidavey (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, yesterday I thought of keep it simple and doing something like the Battle of Thermopylae template moving the refs into the body of the article, but time catch me and I left it for another time. Frenditor (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've dealt with it as best I can, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the article's structure to do as you thought you'd try (quite rightly, imo) with the referenced material. Anyway, see what you think. Haploidavey (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samuel Jones (Confederate Army officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Houlton and Woodfield. 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) 09:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on "Border States"

Way to encourage the vandals, pal. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverting anti-vandalism into vandalized content. I was referring to that. Frenditor (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anglo-French War (1778–83), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Hughes. 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) 10:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Frenditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Got logged today and discovered that I'm blocked. What the hell, there's not a single warning, notice or discussion about it, and I don't remember stepping on anyone's foot lately. I don't even know for what I should defend myself.

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Frenditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That's nonsense. Shouldn't there be a investigation for that? Where's the evidence? To who should I appeal?

Decline reason:

"Confirmed" indicates positive checkuser results. You'll need to appeal from your original account (Vinukin). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Frenditor. 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)[reply]