User talk:Hereward77

Welcome!

Hello, Hereward77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Kosovo

Dear editor, I noticed your recent edits to the template above, including your last edit with the summary "rv, ArbCom has not objected to my edits". Although you are right that you were not part of the Arbitration case on the article Kosovo and related articles (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo for more information), the Arbcom did decide to put Kosovo related articles on Article probation, which applies to all edits and editors dealing these articles. I suggest you read up a bit on the reasons why this ended up at arbitration, before engaging in revert wars on such articles. If you have any questions about this matter, I'd be happy to help you out. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, I was assuming that the arbitration was taking place on the template's discussion page! My apologies. Hereward77 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked the WRONG VANDAL on the Barry Chamish page. The real vandal is the guy operating from the 217... IP address who keeps inserting citations from a smear web site set up by Chamish, and takes out all the critical materials about real historians doubting CXhamish theories. This guy, probably Chamish himself, are trying to force WIKIPEDIA to run a puff page about Chamish that never mentions his Neo-Nazi ties. Please read the two versions in detail YOURSELF! Please merge the two in a responsible manner - rather than allowing a troll to govern what is on the page!

Please don't vandalise the article again or I will give you a warning. Hereward77 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 challenge

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I was off-wiki for a few days. But I note it's now on DRV anyway. Yours, >Radiant< 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Tbeatty 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly deleting material from this reliable source - http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2007/07/27/jprowe0727.html . Please stop vandalising the article. Hereward77 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 categories at CFD

Hi, In case you don't already know, three 9/11 cats are up for discussion here. Hopefully this will turn out better than recent 9/11 CFDs. Regards, Cgingold 14:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:51EYG0NBPDL SS500 .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:51EYG0NBPDL SS500 .jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

If you continue personal attacks and anti-muslim propaganda I will report you. Or just read the Wikipedia rules. Propaganda is not allowed. Grandy Grandy (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking anyone. Please stop removing sourced material. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hereward77, I am going to report you too, because of this WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.

Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.^[1]

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "promoting" anything, I am adding information from mainstream news sources. Please stop censoring this information. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read this WP:SOAP carefully, and you are the one who deleted information included by Grandy which is not from unreliable news reports but from the international court [1]. I ask you to stop. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as Sky News are not "Serb propaganda", this is not "disinformation". The UN court was referring to local sources. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The International court is not "referring", is is concluding. So why did you remove it? Maybe you should first read it...and especially this WP:SOAP. Wikipedia isn't political battleground, so I ask you to read the rules first...Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UN court wasn't referring to Western media sources. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the ICTY conclusion again. [2] ICTY is an international court, not local. It is reffering to evidence. Why did you delete the relaible source such as ICTY? The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it does not disprove the evidence put forward by the Western media sources. This is not "Serb propaganda". --Hereward77 (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to warn you to stop reverting and removing ICTY conclusion, because of 3RR rule. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ICTY conclusion is irrelevant to the article, and is misleading to the reader. Do you deny these Western media reports? --Hereward77 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page removals

Users are normally given wide discretion to remove material from pages in userspace, including removing items from their user talk page. It can get disruptive to revert the removal of warnings. Some editors view the removal of a warning as an indication that the user removing has received and seen the warning. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I want to ask you to stop removing relaible sources per WP:RS, and import unrelaible per WP:SOAP and WP:NOT, and to stop reverting articles, because you will probably be blocked again according to 3RR rule. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blatant lie and you know it. Please stop covering up the dealings of international gangsters. [3] --Hereward77 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this isn't a NATO source. It is just a table with newspapers and their claims put on the SFOR site as a News Summary. According to WP:SOAP it isn't relaible source. I am ready for mediation, just tell me when? The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I "mediate" with someone who doesn't have an argument. Stop hiding the facts and covering up for international gangsters. --Hereward77 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the one who will decide about that. Are you ready for mediation? The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by Wikipedia's inaction over your behaviour, it would probably be a waste of time. --Hereward77 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something you should know regarding User talk:The Dragon of Bosnia#Ivan Kricancic. The anonymous user that posted to many users this and that was once active in Wikipedia is User:Emir Arven. After a request for comment was raised for blatant ethnic hatred, most fearsome xenophobia and other forms of extreme ultra-nationalist intolerance (note: I'm not overreacting) against him, he has left the Wikipedia and never returned. For at least some of the details please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emir Arven. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that important info. There appears to be a lot of 'boot boy' political thuggery, censorship and downright intimidation operating on Wikipedia, and the "admins" do not appear to be doing anything about it. I have already been blocked for submitting factual, well-referenced information on here. So much for being a neutral acedemic resource. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serb propaganda

Thank you for the link to the Sky News video - I've just completed an article on Bosnian Mujahideen (though it's currently protected following deletion/vandalism by user:The Dragon of Bosnia and user:Grandy Grandy. As soon as the dispute is mediated I'll add it to the "Further reading" section. As for the Serb propaganda article, I agree that there certainly were mujahideen in Bosnia (as per my article) and that the Bosnian Muslims also committed war crimes, however, that is not in any way diminished by the article which I am proposing. Yes, one can question the source (the French professor) but at least I make it very clear that the information/analysis/statements are coming from him and that he was working for the Prosecution in the Milosevic case. Hope that you can see my pov.Osli73 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are committing a massive own goal here. This French professor individual (who has only 817 results on Google [4]) is only notable by that fact that he was wheeled in by the prosecution in a political show trial. That in no way justifies an article dedicated largely to him and his non-notable opinions. You need to change your strategy fast here my friend. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't feel that I have any goals. Second, do you have any other solution to sourcing an article on Serb propaganda?Osli73 (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there should be such an article. Allegations of "propaganda" are thrown from all directions during all conflicts, and these sources are dubious to say the least. This is a messy issue and I don't believe that it's notable nor particularly interesting, since we are not dealing with provable unscientific lies such as those propagated by Nazi Germany. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any comments on another of User:The Dragon of Bosnia's articles - 7th Muslim Brigade. I've nominated it for deletion.Osli73 (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated Christopher Story, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded on December 12, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, meco (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your assistance. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus award

This has nothing to do with communism anyway, its actually a medal in Belarus, a country which exists because the Soviet Union collapsed, or do you think Belarus has no right to give its citizens medals in the way that we do in the UK. The pedophile activists think I am a reactionary conservative as do many of those without I have engaed on Margaret Thatcher etc. Therefore for you to claim that I am a secret communist infiltrator is absolutely hilarious albeit clueless. I do actually say on my user page

I don't like socialist ideologies very much

and that, rather than some award another wikipedian gave me, is a fair representation of my political beliefs, and especially in Latin America. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hero of Belarus medal was invented by its communist dictator Alexander Lukashenko, as a replacement for the Hero of the Soviet Union medal which it is almost identical to, bar a few colour changes on the ribbon. You also state that you are a "citizen of the world", meaning that your loyalty is with no nation and that you do not recognise national sovereignty. You are clearly an international socialist. Please be honest for once and stop removing the sourced material from the article. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a citizen of the world means no such thing. I at least do not try to attack my own country in the way that you are doing, siding with the Russians over the Foreign Office. First you claim that I ma not an admin as if that means something then you accuse me of the power going to my heqad when you just said I had no power. Anyway I refactored your personal attack. I suggest you go away and come back when you are more mature and ready to abide by our policies of civility, assuming good faith and neutrality as your over-active imagination and childish political statements have no place on this encyclopedia, and you appear just to be trolling. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm "unpatriotic" for stating facts about Miliband's family background. You talk like Stalin. How can I be "siding with Russia" when I criticise their puppet communist dictator Lukashenko? Yes, Putin is also a communist dictator and always was. You also maintain the insulting fantasy that you are "neutral", when you are blatantly trying to hide the facts. At least I'm honest and open about my political beliefs, and don't hide behind Wikipedia regulations. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please just calm down, I am impartial and I do not use wikipedia to promote any agenda, as you can see by checking my contribs. The only way I sound like Stalin is that, like him, I speak with a foreign accent, and my speciality is Latin America not the former SU. But trying to use wikipedia to discredit a senior member of our government is neither acceptable for a wikipedian nor does it make you a loyal Brit. Your ridiculous claim I have no loyalty to any country is sheer lunacy (the bigotry of the completely ignorant) as I am loyal to 2 countries, neither of them has been communist, though we have our worries down here. The real issue I have with your ranting is that you are completely wrong re me, I am certainly as anti-communist as you, likely more so, lol. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lecture this eurosceptic conservative Brit about loyalty and patriotism. I am not trying to discredit anyone, and your inaccurate slur proves that you are not a neutral player here. You also falsely claim to be "British", when in reality you "speak with a foreign accent" and live in some socialist slum in Latin America. Wikipedia is a farce. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a lot of bollocks, I didn't say I speak English with a foreign accent, doh, nor do I live in a socialist country or a slum, you are being a complete pratt and appear to be an experienced one, now stop it or leave our project as your behaviour is beyond the pale. And the fact that you clearly are trying to discredit our governmetn makes your edits to wikipedia extremely problematic which is why everyone reverts you and why the article is now locked. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation that I am not British is hilarious, though, and about as accurate as all your other accusations, ie a pile of....., as Stalin spoke Russian but actually was a native Georgian speaker, perhaps you didnt know this? But slander me again here or acuse me of lying again here and you will be in trouble. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course you speak with an English accent now, how stupid of me, didn't you state that you were a neighbour of Daniel Ortega? I am not trying to discredit the Labour government nor that of Daniel Ortega, both are doing that job quite effectively themselves. You alone are yet another example Wikipedia's left-wing bias. It would be quite an honour to be banned for offending a disinformation operative. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is cos I am an ex-pat, there are an estimated 5 million of us living outside of our beloved Old Blighty, I never claimed I spoke English with a foreign accent, why on earth would you think that if you have taken even 10 seconds to look at my user page. I'm am sure even you would agree you don't have to live in Britain to be British. I am not trying to discredit anyone, have you looked at my contribs to Ortega, an article I hardly edit. How a right-winger like me can be considered an example of left-wing bias is beyond me. If you get banned it will likely be for incivility and trying to discredit Miliband, neither of which is honourable. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were really a right-winger you wouldn't be so sensitive about Miliband, a member of the Socialist International, nor would you be so eager to hide the more unsavoury aspects of his family background. You are discrediting yourself. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I was a right-winger who wanted to use wikipedia to promote my agenda I wouldn't be sensitive re Miliband. When I come to this site my loyalties are towards wikipedia and its NPOV policy, I put my political views to one side our BLP policy means that I would defend any living individual, also check my contribs to Pinochet just after he died and you'll see what I am on about. I would add that as a loyal British subject I fully respect whoever is democratically elected into power, perhaps you should do the same instead of trying to discredit a senior member of Her Majesty's government. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are dishonestly hiding behind Wikipedia regulations to hide the facts. That wonderful "senior member of Her Majesty's government" has just signed away a load more of our sovereignty to Brussels, if you were a genuine right-winger you would not be loyal to such a person. And you know very well that Red Army did exterminate the opponents of communism. --Hereward77 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't agree there, in order to be competitive in the modern world where India and China are set to become the big players, Europe unification is absolutely essential and the sooner we pass over the democratic part of our affairs to Europe (ie make the EU a democratically elected country) the better (as it clearly isnt functioning democratically right now. Now that certainly does not make am a left winger, just a realist, Latin America needs to do the same while the splintering of the former block of the SU into many countries has been the tragedy of that region when getting rid of communism could have offered so much more (just compare them with how Spain and Portugal have prospered abandooning dictatorship and becoming part oft eh EU). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there clearly is no question that that Red army did massacre their political opponents and Stalin was the kind of individual one never wants to see in politics, obviously. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are having a little joke with us here. The whole idea of European unification has largely been discredited on the right here since the Thatcher era, and has been extinct in the Conservative Party since the death of Edward Heath. The EU with all its corruption and unaccountablity is now hugely unpopular here and no member of the Tory Party, nor any other political figure on the right, would seriously call for the surrender of British sovereignty to Brussels even if they wanted to. Such notions are now isolated to the internationalist left. Just shows how out of touch you are with politics in "Old Blighty". (Laughter) --Hereward77 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, Christopher Story, was selected for DYK!

On 17 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christopher Story, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--meco (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for letting me know, and again thank you for you help. Much appreciated. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other editors, as you did in this edit. Also, please remember to assume good faith. Thank you --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on Alex Jones (radio)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alex Jones (radio). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. "Sourcing" the guest list to his web site is not reliable. I self-reverted to avoid 3RR, myself, even though "according to Jones" is not exactly a revert. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that you disagree with his political beliefs means that he is a "liar", does it? Your actions are entirely biased here. Hereward77 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Alex Jones (radio). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — madman bum and angel 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one questioned if there were mujahideen in Bosnia

You don't even know what is disputed... was it that much tl;dr? Anyway, maybe try reading about what is the issue before speaking up. --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I know a lot about Yugoslavia and how the New World Order has screwed the Serbs by supporting the openly anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi regime of Tudjman in Croatia and the pro-Nazi Islamic fundamentalist regime of Izetbegovic in Bosnia, regimes that you clearly have sympathy with. Izetbegovic even named his presidential guard after a Waffen-SS division. I recommend you read Dr. Yossef Bodansky's excellent research on the Bosnian Mujahideen. Dr. Bodansky is a former Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're crazy. --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another ad hominem attack, you have no argument. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep it cool

Please try to keep cool and cordial when making talk page comments. Personal attacks like this will only result in earning another mark in your block log. If you're feeling frustrated and angry, wander off for a while and come back to the topic when you feel calmer. I understand it is a very emotional and contentious topic, but angry messages will only serve to further inflame the situation. Thanks for understanding. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I walked into that one. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl der Grosse

Before I revert you again, I would like to point your attention to Talk:Charlemagne/Archive 2#Karl der Grosse, where it was previously debated. The fact is that the German name is not used in English sources, Charlemagne is not just a "German" national hero (why not his Dutch name, for one?), and the name is available on the German wiki (link provided). If "Karl der Grosse" were found in English-language literature, it would be relevant. But it isn't. If Charlemagne were especially known as a German national figure, it may be relevant, but he isn't (to the English or anybody else but the Germans perhaps). Srnec (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne is a historical figure specific to the monarchies of France and Germany, so his German name should be included in the introduction. Tell me how many people use the name Carolus Magnus in English literature. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Carolus Magnus" is etymology, so it is different. Also, you encounter it frequently in English literature, as for example in the title of Einhard's Vita Karoli Magni or Notker's Gesta Caroli Magni. He is not specific to the monarchies of France and Germany. He is a European historical figure. His German name is not at all relevant in English. Srnec (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. Charlemagne certainly had no connection to England. The German-dominated Holy Roman Empire traces its roots directly back to Charlemagne. --Hereward77 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had a connexion to England: see pound (currency) or Offa of Mercia. Besides, the "Holy Roman Empire" is not the same thing as Germany and its connexion to Charlemagne is direct but long. The Empire included Italy and Burgundy, for one. Where's Carlomagno? France can trace its roots to Charlemagne. In fact, Catalonia has a very good claim to Charlemagne's legacy. Why don't we add Carlemany? Charlemagne is simply not a "German" figure in any special way, so his German name is not relevant in English. (Maybe if the Germans had written entire literary cycles about him, like the French... but alas.) Srnec (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that France's roots are traced back to Charlemagne, do you propose deleting the French pronounciation too? The other nations you refer to were either conquered by his empire or were influenced by him (marginally in the case of England, since Offa and Charlemagne were not on good terms for much of the time). Charlemagne's Roman Empire soon became the Holy Roman Empire which was ruled by German monarchs (not French, not English, not Catalan) continuously from Otto I in 936 until Franz II in 1806. It was a German empire in all but name until the 16th century when it was officially named the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. On German Wikipedia he is referred to as Karl I, der Grosse, meaning that Germans officially regard him as their first monarch. The Holy Roman Emperors were numbered out of deference to the Carolingian monarchs, including Charlemagne (Karl I). --Hereward77 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian mujahideen

Would you object to a page move from Bosnian mujahideen to El-Mudžahid? If so, why? FYI, Bosnian mujahideen would remain a redirect to the article, per the result of a normal move. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an English language encyclopaedia. El-Mudžahid is an unofficial term used by Bosnians and other Serbo-Croat speakers. Bosnian mujahideen is the term used by English speaking observers of the region to distinguish it from other mujahideen around the world. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring block

I've blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring on Alex Jones (radio). You have been blocked for edit warring before on the same article, you should know better. Mr.Z-man 00:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting the article to its previous state, after it was vandalised by the blocked User:Arthur Rubin. I have not made more than three reverts in the last 24 hours. And why do you falsely claim on the noticeboard that I've had "multiple previous edit warring blocks", when I've only been blocked twice before? --Hereward77 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, it was an edit war, not "vandalism." Second, one does not need to make more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period to be blocked for edit warring, it doesn't magically become disruptive after the third revert. Finally, 2 blocks is "multiple" (more than one). You are more than welcome to ask for review of the block with the {{unblock}} template. Mr.Z-man 06:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you say I had 2 blocks? You were clearly exaggerating in order to justify blocking me. Once again I have been made the fall guy for WP administrators' dereliction of duty in the face of vandalism. Your "administrator" turned politically motivated POV warrior friend Rubin was blatantly violating WP:OR, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. May be if you "admins" took control of these situations a little sooner, I wouldn't need to resort to these entirely justified enforcement measures. The fact that you allow your administrator colleagues to run riot and impose their political beliefs on articles shows how farcical Wikipedia has become. No wonder Wikipedia is now a laughing stock. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2008 (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).

Hereward77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is long enough. I need to deal with a persistent single-purpose vandal who is smearing the journalist Barry Chamish.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. You have provided us with no reason to believe you will refrain from all further edit warring in the future. — Yamla (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2008 (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).

Hereward77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh this is rich, I see you haven't removed the smears from the Barry Chamish article yet, that's a violation of WP:BLP. My "edit warring" as you call it, was a result of your blocked "administrator" friend's repeated smear attempts against Alex Jones (radio) and other admins' inability to stop him.

Decline reason:

Neither of these unblock requests have addressed the issue for which you have been blocked, thus, I'm declining this request. Edit warring is not an acceptable practice here, and is not tolerated, as I hope you have learned. The block of this account is set to expire in a short time from now, and I hope that you do not edit war anymore once the block expires. — Rjd0060 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (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.

If you "admins" could even be bothered to uphold your own rules I wouldn't have needed to "edit war". --Hereward77 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barry Chamish. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please stop edit warring on this article. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took out all the contentious material. PLease do not restore it until and unless you and Data image can work out some wording and provide sources. I am seriously thinking of protecting the page in the meantime. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data image is single-purpose vandal who is clearly out to defame Mr. Chamish. We have had similar problems before with sock-puppets on this article. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne

I'm confused. It's not that the HRE nearly two centuries after his death, it's that it didn't exist when the man was alive. There was no Holy Roman Empire when he was alive, and there certainly was no German nation. In any case, again, it has been discussed at talk, and it is not up to you to change it without making a case on talk. I'm having trouble following your argument at present, but in any case Talk:Charlemagne is the place to make it, after you have read the archives. Slac speak up! 11:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report of 67.175.222.82

Hey, I saw that you recently made a report about IP address 67.175.222.82. I appreciate your valiant efforts to prevent a bias point of view on Wikipedia, however, the IP has to be adequately warned before an admin can block it. I did give a warning on the talk page about the edit you listed. If the IP keeps adding his or her biased view, and has been adequately warned, then it is appropriate to report to WP:AIV. Thank you and happy editing! Icestorm815 • Talk 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring block

You have already been told by other administrators that edit warring is not an acceptable editing tactic, but you have continued to edit war on Kosovo Liberation Army. I am also concerned at the amount of biased editing that you are engaging in - to quote WP:NPOV, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." Please be aware that Balkans-related articles are currently under a an arbitration sanction that "may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." If you continue to edit disruptively, you may find this sanction being enforced against you. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I am using are from neutral sources such as newspaper articles, not controversial political NGOs such as HRW. Please see for example: Criticism of Human Rights Watch --Hereward77 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conservative Monday Club. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on Conservative Monday Club

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring on the Conservative Monday Club article, and for personal attacks on another editor.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones

Alex Jones and David Rotschild. You've obviously seen the same documentary which I have. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alex Jones (radio). 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. .

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Repeated 3RR violations on Alex Jones (radio). Personal attacks in edit summaries as described at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down

I noticed this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hereward77_and_NPA and I see that Arthur Rubin is getting under your skin. I appreciate why you are getting angry since he seems to love to bandy about the distasteful CT phrase. Please do not rise to his baiting. Tony0937 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Hereward77! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 522 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Alain Le Vern - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Christopher Story for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Story, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Story until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Note: Wikipedia pages may not be used for advocacy unrelated to Wikipedia, but pages in the Wikipedia namespace may be used to advocate for improving or organizing Wikipedia itself. So essays, portals, project pages, etc. are part of what Wikipedia is.

[1] Note: Wikipedia pages may not be used for advocacy unrelated to Wikipedia, but pages in the Wikipedia namespace may be used to advocate for improving or organizing Wikipedia itself. So essays, portals, project pages, etc. are part of what Wikipedia is.

[1]