User talk:Killerman2

Welcome!

Hello, Killerman2, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --DLand ^TALK 13:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) --DLand ^TALK 13:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Operation Summer Rains. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 08:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - Al-Aqsa Intifada

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. You've made already more than 3 reverts today to the Al-Aqsa Intifada article. please self revert your last edit. Thanks, Noon 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

In the spirit of WP:AGF, I decided to give you a benefit of the doubt. For this, do you have a better explanation than a personal attack? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi Killerman, You have reverted the deletion of Category:War Crimes three times at 2006 Lebanese-Israeli Conflict. If you revert once more in the next 24 hours you will be in violation of WP:3RR and you may be blocked from editing. GabrielF 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. GabrielF 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions on Israel are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that you do not violate the 3RR and cease making anti-semitic personal attacks. GabrielF 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

This is your second warning for a 3RR violation. You have changed the infobox three times, if you do it again it will be a violation of 3RR. GabrielF 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warcrimes at 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict

Please don't add this category again. There is a general consensus that it should not be there. Continuing to add it is vandalism. Thanks. --Iorek85 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page;

Why is this article included in the War Crimes category? Until a court has decided that a specific action is a war crime, any such categorisation is POV and should be avoided. Cymruisrael 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the category has been removed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't war crimes unless they are declared as such by international courts. I'm sorry I said general consensus - that isn't true, and I was mistaken. Still, any War Crimes tag is POV until courts agree so. --Iorek85 07:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict. Continuing to place that category will be considered vandalism, and you may be blocked for it. Thank you. -- Avi 17:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of a Thousand Heartless prod

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article War of a Thousand Heartless, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:War of a Thousand Heartless. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Axem Titanium 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you removed the prod template from War of a Thousand Heartless. Would you care to elaborate why and/or provide some ways to improve the article? Axem Titanium 17:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing my point. I don't think there's enough information on the topic anywhere to make an article. As in, even if you beat the game, it isn't going to help. Axem Titanium 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:KHII_4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KHII_4.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angolan Civil War and SWAPO

You make extremely valuable edits, such as you edit to Angolan Civil War. Please consider using edit summaries more often. It may seem like a little issue, but using edit summaries make your edits seem more genuine. Edits that do not seem bonafide (ie. those without edit summaries) are often not taken seriously, and may be reverted. --Ezeu 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Hi. If you revert a page more than three times / 24 hours, you will be blocked as per WP:3RR. You have now reverted Scanian War three times already. The talk pages are there for discussions, please use them!

Fred-Chess 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: ... Further, I think even if you don't run afoul of 3RR, edit warring whild discussion is going on is blockable. Please don't revert further, instead convince the current consensus that a change is needed. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AK-47

Please refrain from adding the info you have been adding to Ak-47. If you do it again, it will be a 3RR violation. Thank you. CynicalMe 20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Lehi (group)

Please stop what many users involved on the page perceive as vandalizing Lehi (group). Continuing to place that category may be considered vandalism, and you may be blocked for it. Thank you. -- Amoruso 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 8 2006 to Lehi (group)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 15:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titans (TV series)

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links will not be tolerated. The next time you insert commercial content and/or links into a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rwandan Genocide

I have reverted your reinsertion of the infobox on this page. You clearly have little interest in dialogue so this is your last warning rather than waiting for the 3RR violation. If you reinsert the box without first gaining consensus on Talk:Rwandan Genocide, I will simply go with the block for general disruption. - Banyan Tree 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go again. Why don't you let someone who actually knows the topic work on the article before you edit war over your pet infobox, which also manages to confuse a fine point of definition. Again, I will block if you engage in a revert war. - Banyan Tree 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary in that last message had the best grammar I've ever seen from you. But you're still wrong - you're lumping militias active in the genocide into the RPF v government war, as well as lumping those killed in the genocide into the RPF v gov't war, without any attempt to define what conflicts you're including and what your end point is - are you including the Great Lakes refugee crisis, the RPF massacres of civilians, the government massacre of civilians in early 1991, etc etc? I'm trying to clear up the confusion between the war and genocide and your infobox is reintroducing that confusion. I'll tell you what - once I make some time and start adding what refs I can to the article, I'll reintroduce an infobox that attempts to draw those distinctions. The sheer ignorance of that infobox made me give up on that article and take it off my watchlist for six months last time, after I started it, and I'm sure you would agree that the content is more important than the infobox. So let me work. - Banyan Tree 12:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Barbatus, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. M a rtinp23 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No flags in infoboxes, please

Stop adding flags in the infobox in American Revolutionary War, per WP:MILHIST.--chris.lawson 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if it is your ultimate intention to revert them. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. –Llama man 21:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism which, under Wikipedia guidelines, can lead to blocks being applied. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Please stop adding the flags in the infobox. –Llama man 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked. –Llama man 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from your talk page; other users will utilize this page as a way of seeing past discussion, and removing things can be seen as disruptive if you appear to be trying to hide something. You may wish to consider archiving old discussions; take a look at the move page if you would like to learn more about moving and renaming articles. Please see WP:MILHIST#Infobox_templates for an explanation why the flags shouldn't be there. –Llama man 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on January 27 2007 to American Revolutionary War

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 22:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan War

Hi, Killerman2. Thanks for your edits to Trojan War — unfortunately, I've reverted them, because of previous discussion at Talk:Trojan War. {{Infobox Military Conflict}} is for historical wars and battles. While there may have been a historical Trojan War, we know so little about it that the infobox really isn't appropriate. What we do know about the war is based on myth, legend, art and literature. There just isn't enough historical evidence to justify the infobox. If you disagree, please discuss at Talk:Trojan War. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Battle of Hollow Bastion

An editor has nominated Battle of Hollow Bastion, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hollow Bastion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 10:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR

If you do not stop adding content without reliable sources that violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V to tragic villain, I will bring the matter to an admin's attention. ' 13:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[3] made on March 2 2007 to Tragic villain

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

For gross incivility and removing warnings, make that 72h. Please control yourself.

William M. Connolley 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth icon

Instead of modern flag of Poland, please use the coat of arms as seen in Smolensk War.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Daniel Hansson

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Daniel Hansson, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Daniel Hansson is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Daniel Hansson, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction battle articles

Stop creating or recreating articles on fictional battles. Those violates many guidelines, including WP:V and WP:FICT. Moreover, stop using the conflict infobox for fictional battles. ' 07:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Betruger

Please stop reverting the redirect for this article. Firstly, the subject is not independently notable, as it fails the general notability guideline and the notability for fiction guideline, due to a lack of coverage in any reliable, secondary non-trivial sources. As a result, it cannot be written from a real-world perspective suitable for an encyclopedia, containing commentary on the character's development, reception and cultural impact. That means it can only remain as a description of the game's plot from this character's perspective, and Wikipedia is not a repository for plot summaries. Any coverage of Dr. Betruger should be confined to the respective video game articles where he appears. The term is, however, a legitimate search term, and so it is perfectly reasonable to redirect it to a more appropriate article without deleting it. -- Sabre (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Joker (comics). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Wave Attack

You have three times reverted changes to this article without explanation. The changes have been extensively debated on the article's Talk page but you have not participated in that discussion. Please refrain from reverting changes until consensus has been reached on your proposals. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sure kill educating information. I wounder why? Killerman2 (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the reworking of the article are discussed at length on the article's Talk page. You are most welcome to join in the discussion. Cyclopaedic (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Killerman2! 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 ensure 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 20 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Torsten Stålnacke - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Hron for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Hron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hron(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article. Anthem 10:42, 12 June 2011 (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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ambush at Ithilien" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ambush at Ithilien. Since you had some involvement with the Ambush at Ithilien redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]