User talk:Walterego

Hello, Walterego, 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! Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenary

Please see Talk:Mercenary#Misinterpretation of GCIV --Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North America

Walter, please accept this as an advisory that you are edit warring on the North America article. You are asked to reach a consensus first before making any further changes. Your present approach, wherein you are making unfounded and unfair accusations about POV edits, is not acceptable. Personally, I have no preference as I ham familiar with the multiple differnet interpretations of the term, so I'd appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of having a bias. As for the Urban Dictionary, it is not acceptable as a source because it fails Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. As a user-contribution-based site, we cannot use it for a reference, even for what you are doing. All I'm asking is that you work toward consensus on the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting to your own version. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haditha killings categorization

Your recent edits on Haditha killings do not seem to reflect previous discussion on the talk page. They also disrupted the interwiki links with other pages on the topic. Please discuss further changes on the Talk page before going ahead with them.--Carwil (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Parry

In doing research on far-left conspiracy theories, I noticed that you challenged the citation of fringe blogger Robert Parry, who claimed that Jimmy Carter "green-lit" the Iraqi invasion of Iran, in the talk page of the Iran-Iraq War article. This happened in 2009, so you might not remember. You correctly pointed out that Parry's claim to have found "an X-file" in "a remote Capitol Hill storage room" was utterly ridiculous. I just thought that you might like to know that Parry has a long history of making such claims. "Robert Parry revealed on his investigative news website Consortium News that he had recently discovered, in an abandoned Capitol Hill bathroom in which Lee Hamilton's October Surprise Committee stored files, a Russian report that had been hand-delivered to the US Embassy in 1993 confirming that the October Surprise actually did occur." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy_theory#The_Consortium_News

He's apparently broken into Capitol Hill dozens of times, finding the secret documents the MSM doesn't want you to know about. It sure is amazing that only he can find all of these incredible pieces of evidence with ease! And people actually believe him. There's an echo chamber on the internet in which some truly bizarre conspiracy theories have been created and mutated over time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle rifle vs assault rifle

By the definition used in all small arms related articles on WP weapons chambered for a full power cartridge, such as the 7.62x51mm, are battle rifles, not assault rifles, so please stop changing it, as you've done at G3 and HK-417. Thomas.W (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I stop changing it? What definition are you talking about? The HK 417 is clearly an assault rifle, not a battle rifle. HK itself calls it that.Walterego (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a piece of friendly advice. If you want to take it to an edit war, you against everyone else, then that's your choice. Thomas.W (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have any reason for your edit to the article other than "that's what 'everyone else' thinks"? Sources don't matter on wikipedia? Walterego (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but sources do matter, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica is the source we go by. A source that outweighs what the marketing people on various companies choose to call their products. Thomas.W (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're reading your own source. The Encyclopedia Britannica entry you just cited specifically identifies the G3 as an assault rifle, and the FN FAL also. So thanks for helping prove my point: "Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3. " The article makes no mention of the existence of Battle Rifles or how they are supposed to be distinct from assault rifles.Walterego (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples that contradict the first sentence "assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge". Which is what we go by (the FN FNC is 5,56mm BTW). Thomas.W (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia Britannica clearly regards assault rifle calibers from 5.56 to 7.62 NATO to all be ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge. Keep trying, you dug yourself a hole to get out of with that source, lol. Walterego (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Your recent editing history at Heckler & Koch HK417 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. Thomas.W (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, you're the one who just invited me to edit war, you're "edit warring" as well, and now you're warning me to stop what you yourself are doing? LMAO Walterego (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to post the same warning on your own talk page, but that would be childish. Also you're busy trying to find more sources that don't contradict your own point the way the EB source did.Walterego (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've reached three reverts within 24h on the same page, that's why you were warned, in total accordance with the rules. And I didn't invite you to an edit war, I only informed you that you were heading for one. An edit war that you, since all of your attempts to change battle rifle to assault rifle on weapons chambered for the 7.62x51mm have been reverted so far, by several different editors and not just me, most probably would be on the losing side of. Thomas.W (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You referred to the HK 417 article (not the other 7.62 assault rifle pages, I'm not changing the G3 article), and you're the only person reverting my edits on the HK 417 page. And you're doing so without providing sources that support your reversions. You say sources matter, but you're reverting based on original research. Walterego (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one who is reverting you on Heckler & Koch HK417 since your latest revert was just reverted by another user. You also have made the same changes more than once on Heckler & Koch G3, which proves that you're edit warring there too. Thomas.W (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, "Another user". How convenient. I've noticed you're stalking my edits on other pages, reverting them as well. Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to find sources for ANY of these edits you've made? So far you've provided none that support that the HK 417/G3 are not assault rifles, indeed you've only provided a source that states that they are. Walterego (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking you but checking to see if you've made the same type of unconstructive edits on other articles, something I always do when I find someone who's making disruptive edits. Thomas.W (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only your opinion that my edits are "disruptive" or unconstructive, in my judgement they are constructive because they are based on sources, not original research as yours are. You ought to presume good will, that I'm trying to improve wikipedia, which I am by categorizing HK 417 the way that Heckler & Koch categorizes it, the way that Encyclopedia Britannica categorizes the G3, etc. Instead you all but dared me to an edit war, and then engaged in exactly that as well as stalking my edits. You should take some time away from the internet and calm down. Walterego (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're the one who's getting all worked up, so maybe you should take some time off? All I'm doing is making sure that we stick to the established praxis here. And if I didn't do it, one or more of the other regular editors here would, as you can see from the page history of the articles you're edit warring on. Thomas.W (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kinky (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man On Fire (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) 13:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Improvisational theatre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix (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) 11:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mellow Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Stephenson. 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) 09:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Peña listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Enrique Peña. Since you had some involvement with the Enrique Peña redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 11:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlyn Jenner is under Discretionary Sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, to quote the Manning Naming Dispute case The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:04, 2 June 2015 (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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Walterego. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Walterego. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Walterego. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]