User talk:Szekszter

Welcome!

Hello, Szekszter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! sats 00:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patrik Eliáš, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech (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) 09:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try discussing first

Why won't you use the article's Talk page? HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIRCULAR and Russian Ground Forces

I'm not sure if you're actually not aware, but we cannot use wikipedia pages as sources (WP:CIRCULAR). If you wish to retain the 35,000 figure for the VDV, cite some sort of other source that is not wikipedia. Thanks and seasons' greetings !! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Now the other question - that's the Ground Forces page. The VDV is a separate service; do we need any reference to them there? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your force structure additions to the Syrian Army article. Would you please add your source? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I shouldn't really have missed that !! Happy New Year anyway... Buckshot06 (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Army

Don't insert any mention of the 2nd Armoured Division unless there's verification since the Civil War began that it exists. You will see that I added months ago that Holliday seems to think that there was a reserve armoured division, but that it was the 17th - Bennett in 2001 had the wrong designation. Also you need to insert sources for the 14th and 15th Brigades. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, Hama Governorate clashes (2011–12) needs a major do over. As do most battles/clashes that highlight units involved. I've seen regiments turn into brigades, 4th Armoured appear alongside itself again as 4th mechanized and the independent SP regiments all seem to be attached to the 15th SF Div Szekszter (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a careful look at the source you inserted for the OB. That's the only reliable OB source for divisions. The only inaccuracy that I've seen so far is for the mention of the 2nd Armoured Division - everything else seems right. You'll also see that Holliday has an explanation for this brigade/regiment thing as well, I think. Forget this mis-attribution of the 4th Armd - that's just journalists getting stuff wrong. We know it's the 4th Armd under Maher. The SF regiments remain a puzzle; they get attached to everything and anything. Best to ring up Joseph Holliday and talk to him, I think ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that will have to wait 'till next year. Happy New Year! Szekszter (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, except here it is 2014!! Happy New Year to you when it arrives - I've removed the 2nd Armd Div mentions in that article, which were without sources and inserted by an anon IP. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Republican Guard (Syria) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mechanized

Shabiha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi

Hi. I believe this issue was already discussed. The page is reserved for people from the Somali ethnic group, as the hatnote clearly indicates (This article is about the Somali ethnic group. For the general population of the Federal Republic of Somalia, see Demographics of Somalia. For other uses, see Somali (disambiguation).). Ali is also a controversial and disliked figure within the Somali community. There are many other less disliked but also potentially controversial figures who were omitted for this reason; she isn't alone. Have a look at the Syrian people page and see how many such figures you can find. There are none. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there is a well known enough Syrian to be noted, please include him/her in the page, even if it's a snake like Assad. the more diverse the representation, the better. regards Szekszter (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assad is ethnically Syrian. The material you added on Christians in Somalia pertains to Bantus, not ethnic Somalis. Middayexpress (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Your recent editing history at Somali people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Middayexpress (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating WP:3RR and POV-pushing against consensus, as you did at Somali people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demaryius Thomas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Combine (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) 09:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

It has come to my attention that this account is clearly being operated by Beloki (talk · contribs) who was placed under editing restrictions as per WP:BLPSE as detailed here. You clearly decided that these restrictions need not apply to you - so you just abandoned your old account and created this new account shortly afterwards. You made a few edits using your old account on 23 September 2013, perhaps accidentally. In any case, there was clearly a large amount of deception involved here and any resonable person would have known that operating multiple accounts in this way is unacceptable. Evidence which drives me to conclude this was a duck case of sockpuppetry includes the following:

Editing the same articles in multiple very diverse subjects (1, 2)
Tendency of both accounts to engage in edit wars and similar aggressive styles of behaviour
Very similar editing styles

Therefore:

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. CT Cooper · talk 05:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of this account will be discontinued. Any future edits should be made using the Beloki (talk · contribs) account. Further action in regards to sanctions and blocks will be detailed at User talk:Beloki. CT Cooper · talk 05:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]