User talk:Mesoso2

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Hello, Mesoso2, 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 02:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenary

You wrote in the edit history of the article Mercenary "status as POWs completely irrelevant to whether some people might consider them mercenaries)". If you wish to include the contentious claim "For instance the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas are not normally considered mercenaries, but some observers consider them to be mercenaries" then please provide a verifiable, reliable source naming the credible observers who consider them to be mercenaries.

The problem you have with this is that 10% of the British Army are not UK citizens, but because they take an oath of allegiance to the Queen they are not mercenaries and to treat them as such on capture would be a breach of the Geneva conventions. If you read GCIII, unlike GCIV, there is no mention of nationality because under international law a soldier can fight for any Power not just from the nation state of which he (or she) is a citizen (But they may face a prohibition under their own state's laws). What is important under the laws of war is that he is employed by the Power under the same terms and conditions as other members of the Power's armed forces and the oath of allegiance is a strong indicator of this. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maréchal des logis

You keep deleting the maréchal des logis article, saying "it is wrong". Well, I was an officer in the french gendarmerie some years ago, and I think I kinda know the ranks of the french military and its particularities. So, please, stop deleting this article. 84.103.83.40 09:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beleived it to be wrong on the basis of the confusion over some Marechal des Logis wearing gold chevrons, which I believd to be a mistake. The Spahi gold badges issue has been a source of confusion on the Spahi page itself. Overall your version does, having done some research, seem accurate. Your intro sentence "The french military don't use the term NCO, prefering the term sous-officiers, meaning "sub-officers" (compare to german unteroffizier" is rather off the point, all that needs to be said is it is a sub-officer rank. As for your claim to have been a gendarmerie officer, i think it would be stretching my assumption of good faith a little far to assume an anonymous user with no verifiable background was a gendarmerie officer, it is possible but it is equally possible you are a lying pimply little 15 year old geek, so i cant really let your claim influence my editing either way. Mesoso2 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the Spahis are a Cavalry unit, wich means they have "horse ranks" (corporal -> brigadier, sergent -> Maréchal-des-logis), but they wear gold insignia. It is the same for the Artillery, wich use "horse ranks" and wears gold insignia. It is a fact well documented. If you read french, I invite you to look at this site [1], wich is the ordre de la Libération page on the Régiment de marche de spahis marocains during WWII. You can see the mentions of a maréchal des logis and a brigadier, wich confirms my point. Spahis use "horse ranks" and gold insignia, so maréchal des logis can wear gold insignia, although it is quite uncommon.

Do you truly think "a lying pimply little 15 year old geek" can have this kind of interest on some details of french military insignia ?

84.99.251.220 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i know about the spahis, i am saying exactly that, now that i have researched it, your version seems accurate. that is the point i am trying to make above.

I think 15 year old geeks could well have an interest in military insignia, geeks take an interest in random specialist subjects, it is what they do. many people are interested in militaria. you may on the other hand have actually been an officer of gendarmery. the point i am making is that i can't possibly know who you are, so your claimed background cannot really be cited as a specific reason for me trusting your knowledge. Mesoso2 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case it isn't clear, i now agree with your version of the article, with the exception of the NCO and unteroffizier bit. Mesoso2 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, restoration then, without the "NCO bit". Next time, I appreciate that you research before deleting ;-). 84.99.251.92 23:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrondissements of France

I've undone your recent move of this article to Districts of France. According to my copy of Chambers 20th Century dictionary, arrondissement is indeed an English word. It also has a much more specific meaning in the context of French administrative subdivisions than the general word "district". Let me know if you have further comments. Kiwipete 10:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

District has a specific meaning in french (a division of the départements between 1789 & 1801 and an old sort of community of communes). Using it instead of arrondissement would be a confusion of senses. Gato76680 12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a vague term instead of a precise one seems non encyclopedic to me. The fact you don't know well french administrative divisions doesn't mean you should mess the different terms and create confusions. District as community of communes has been used until the beginning of this century and this sense is still well known. France has already more administrative divisions than other countries (régions/départements/arrondissements/communes/pays/communautés de communes or communauté d'agglomération or communautés urbaines) and doen't need anybody to add more confusion ! Each country has its own terms and translating into polysemic terms them doesn't help. Gato76680 ^✉ 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino

Why did you move San Marino to Most Serene Republic of San Marino? Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. In general, before you do page moves on established articles you may want to discuss it on the article's talk page, to see whether anyone has valid objections to your proposed move. --Mathew5000 21:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General (Officer)

Any comment on this Talk:General_Officer#General_officer? - Shaheenjim 07:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troupes de Marine

Please have a look on my answer on the talk page. If you really disagree with me please let's have the argument submitted to a vote, renaming a page without a proper discussion is not the way to go in Wikipedia, You may be bold when it comes to change content inside a page but not when it comes to rename an article. I haven't reverted your edits, as I'm sure someone else will do it, just to show you that I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. Sincerely Blastwizard (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant General

(the ranks of corps general and lieutenant colonel general are intended to solve this apparent anomaly).
I do not disagree with your addition, but I think it is a little out of context, and hence it does not seem to make a lot of sense. The "lieutenant colonel general" is not mentioned anywhere (else) in the article and "corps general" is only mentioned in the next paragraph. I think your addition needs more context. It would probably achieve this by being incorporated into the next paragraph; it seems unrelated to the paragraph you added it to the end of. Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think corps general is common enough that it should possibly be mentioned in the introduction, although maybe not? I admit lt. col. general is rare. I dont mind really, make the edits you think best and i will probably agree. Mesoso2 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a "fiddle". I'm not totally happy with the result - the sentence: (The ranks of corps general and lieutenant colonel general are intended to solve the apparent Lieutenant General / Major General anomaly). still seems to be out of context.

Your turn! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that, but if you feel it is out of context do feel free to discuss it with others on the talk page. I think it is a relevant and interesting piece of information for the intro, but others may disagree! If other users think it is out of place, remove it I guess! Mesoso2 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Navy SEALs

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally while discussion about it is underway, as you did to United States Navy SEALs. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Outdawg (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To second the above, the move wasn't clearly wrong or abusive, but the normal course of action is to post a discussion on the article talk page and gain consensus prior to executing a move. Just going out and doing it is ok sometimes, but for many articles will be percieved as abusive. If there's a good reason, posting a note and waiting a week to see if people object doesn't hurt anyone and avoids confusion and stress. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Marshal

I noticed your recent edit to Air Marshal with some interest. Is it generally the case that Marechal-do-ar is translated as air marshal? Without knowing much about the Brazilian Air Force, I would guess that Marshal of the Air Force or Marshal of the Brazilian Air Force would be a better translation. Also, has any Brazilian officer ever held this rank? Greenshed (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that i should invent an inaccurate translation to make the Brazilian rank appear to mimic equivalence with ranks of other countries. The Portuguese Marechal-do-ar translates as Air Marshal. Marechal = Marshal, do ar = (of the) Air.

"Marshal of the Air Force" would i assume be Marechal da Força Aérea, and "Marshal of the Brazilian Air Force" Marechal da Força Aérea Brasileira. Neither of these ranks exist in Brazil. Mesoso2 (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there have only been two Brazilian Air Marshals, Casimiro Montenegro Filho and Eduardo Gomes. Mesoso2 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Articles

I noticed the articles you created at 21 Regiment Special Air Service‎ and 23 Regiment Special Air Service. Can I please first of all ask you to use the edit summary to explain your rationale behind your revisions of my edits, not to do so can be considered rude and is certainly bad form? I have redirected those articles to other places because the information that you have provided is already included in much better articles else where, namely in the Special Air Service and Artists Brigade articles. It is preferable to redirect to those articles rather than to have stub articles that do not provide much information. Before you revert my changes again, can I please ask you to discuss this, or at the very least explain your rationale? --Deadly∀ssassin 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. My understanding is that I need to discuss to DELETE pages or to REDIRECT pages but not to CREATE pages. Additionally, my rationale is that while these pages must begin as stubs, they will grow. I have already made them much longer than when you just redirected them, and am still doing so right now. Mesoso2 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss when an editor has a concern about edits you are making, reverting good faith edits without explanation isn't the best way to proceed. My concern is that you are expanding them by copying the text from the Special Air Services and Artists Rifles articles. I fail to understand how creating a number of substantial copies of existing articles is adding anything except confusion to subject. --Deadly∀ssassin 18:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, although good faith, were edits which basically removed a page and therefore require discussion. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Stub says that "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text". This does not apply to either article.

As far as you not understanding the creation of the new articles is concerned (1) as i say,they are supposed to get larger over weeks and months, but they have to start somewhere, (2) your dislike of creating new articles is something you will have to do discuss as wikipedia:policy and i will of course accept if an anti-article-creation policy is decided by wikipedia as a whole. Mesoso2 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does no good starting to quote policy at each other. I will, however, point out that the rationale behind my edits was made in the edit summaries, as were my requests to you to discuss. As this discussion appears to be going nowhere I have proposed the merger[2] so that the community as a whole has the opportunity to reach a consensus. --Deadly∀ssassin 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does a lot of good to quote policy, if you dont like wikipedia policy you shouldnt use wikipedia. The discussion has been very useful, i have said we need to discuss if you wish to remove those pages and you agree. Mesoso2 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers

The name Rangers has special relevance for certain sports, football (soccer) in particular. It isn't at all the same thing as a Ranger. So please don't redirect the Rangers disambiguation page to Ranger again. Thanks. OldSpot61 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rangers" is simply the plural of "ranger". The word Rangers has special relevance for any organisation with people called rangers. If people want to read about sports teams they can look in the relevant part of the disambiguation page, or even better, actually put the name of the sports team they are looking for. Mesoso2 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the point: Rangers, the football club, is named exactly that: Rangers. There must be a link to it from a page named Rangers, not Ranger. Please don't blank the Rangers page again. OldSpot61 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers, the football club, are named Rangers Football Club.

Rangers, the Texas police, are named Texas Rangers.

Rangers, the US Army soldiers, are named US Army Rangers.

etc.

You basically have no point.

If it is not clear where a page should direct, and there is no concensus, it is suppoosed to go to a disambiguation page, that is why disambiguation pages exist.

Mesoso2 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a disambiguation page is needed for things that have the name Rangers and are not simply more than one ranger. I hope you now appreciate the reason for having a Rangers disambiguation page. If you have further issues, please would you discuss it further, not delete the content of the page again. OldSpot61 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we try to get other comments on this matter, so that the matter can be resolved. Until then, I will not except that only sports teams are called rangers, because that is ridiculous. Rangers always means more than one ranger, and the sports team titles also mean more than one ranger. Mesoso2 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British_Legions

Hi, most of this article seemed to be directly copied from this website which has a copyright notice at the bottom. Can you confirm whether you asked permission to publish this information under a free license or if you are the copyright holder yourself? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes and huntsmen

Hi, I came across the huntsmen while stubsorting,and have fixed several apostrophes which I think were yours. "Huntsmen" is plural, so to make it possessive you just add " 's " to get "Huntsmen's Regiment" etc. If it was "Hunter", then the plural would be "Hunters " and the possessive "Hunters' ". Hope that makes sense and that I've tidied all the links to pages I moved. (Then I got sidetracked onto your discussion about Rangers above... that's Wikipedia!) PamD (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Army

I couldn't agree more with your last comments at Talk:Indian Army (1858–1947). Please do stay on around the page! As you were the editor who moved the article to its present name, I should support you if you were to move it again to Indian Army (1895-1947). Xn4 (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General's Stars

I have noticed that you are redirecting articles and blanking without prior discussion. This is implicitly not allowed, especially since you are just blanking established articles. You need to discuss such moves first at WT:MILHIST and establish appropriate consensus and then, it approved, merge the articles together instead of starting over from scratch. Accordingly, to preserve the established content and attribution requirements, I have reverted your blanking and redirects. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects assume everyone uses the same system as america which is not the case. Three star general (for example) does not mean anything outside a given country context. DIfferent countries use different systems. Since it is obvious to anyone who has done the most minimal research that the current redirects are meaningless and therefore misleading and therefore wrong, the situation is clear enough for me to make the appropriate redirects. Any information you want on the encyclopedia can go on the appropriate article, e.g. divisional general, lieutenant general etc. Mesoso2 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it, you still have to gain consensus and discuss this properly before undertaking this. Just blanking the articles is unacceptable. If you continue to undo my reverts due to inmproper discussion, you will be blocked for edit warring. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you dont get it, i can edit wikipedia without your permission, and you haven't even offered an argument that my redirects are incorrect. You could on ly start to discuss seeking a consensus if there was an argument that my edits were wrong. And which article have i "blanked"???? Mesoso2 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally do you know the 3 revert rule??? Mesoso2 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three articles which were blanked and replaced with redirects, which is improper without discussing the matter: [3],[4],[5]. Also, the impetus on discussion is on the person who wants to change the status quo. BTW, I'm an admin, and you are trying to undertake major structural moves without consensus. See WP:BRD -MBK₀₀₄ 21:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a final warning to stop undoing redirects, without discussing them. YOU ARE EDIT WARRING without consensus. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i do not need a consensus on every edit, you have to offer me some at least weak argument to show the redirects were intrinsically wrong from an encyclopedia viewpoint. Can you do that? Mesoso2 (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I started a conversation at WT:MILHIST here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#General.2FAdmiral_Stars_rank_articles even though the onus should be on you, so please prove your case as to why your edits have merit. As I have stated, the impetus to gain the consensus isn't on the person maintaining the status quo but on the person who wishes to change it. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer me some at least weak argument to show the redirects were intrinsically wrong from an encyclopedia viewpoint? Yes or no? Mesoso2 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that you are going about these changes the wrong way, without discussing them properly. Especially since you are redirecting articles to an incomplete article that you are writing. Perhaps you could finish writing your article first and then propose changing the redirects? Also, you really should make a statement at the link I gave you. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i'll hold off more edits on this for the time being. Nonetheless i think your actions entirely inappropriate. We both know you cannot think of a reason to object to the actual content of the edits Mesoso2 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that using templates such as {{mergeto}}, {{mergewith}} or something similar would be appropriate as it will get more editors involved in the content improvement process. These kinds of templates are designed to do just what is being proposed: see a need to make things better, notify editors, and have a common discussion area, without losing the content of articles along the way. — MrDolomite • Talk 06:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks Mr Dolomite that is a very useful comment. Mesoso2 (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lieutenant General

I have responded to your request (demand?) here. Given the above discussion, which I have not read yet, it seems appropriate to also copy my posting here. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale changes without either consensus or supporting evidence

In these edits, user:Mesoso2 has made a large number of significant changes without consulting anyone, and without any consensus.

Further

none of the changes have supporting references
many of the statements, particularly the generalisations, are simply incorrect
whole sections, (e.g. "Lieutenant General equivalent ranks") have been removed without either justification or explanation
although there is a similarity in structure/layout between the various pages for Flag Officer/General Officer ranks, Mesoso2 has chosen to implement an entirely different structure/layout

Accordingly, as is my understanding of the wikipedia process in such circumstances, I have reverted these changes with the edit comment: "I'm very sorry, but only half of what you say is true. Let's discuss it on the talk page BEFORE making such wholesale changes."

As with the edits themselves, Meseoso2 has chosen to implement a different process: "Unding RV. You have deleted a lot of changes, i have no idea which you disagree with. If you have a specific point you disagree with, put that on the talk page"

In response: "I'm afraid that it was you who initially made the large number of changes - it is up to you to explain and justify them. Nevertheless, as you have made the request, I will put some notes on the talk page."

As Mesoso2 has asked for specific comments:

"In some countries (e.g. UK, USA) a lieutenant general theoretically commands an army corps, typically 20,000 to 40,000 men. In others (Eg Russia, Germany) lieutenant general is the divisional command rank, leading 10,000 to 20,000 men."
- The original arrangement of sentences is more logical; these two sentences are not appropriate as the 2nd & 3rd of the article.
- The first of the above two sentences is extremely vague, and doesn't say anything particularly useful or relevant about the rank; it is more a comment on the size of the country's army.
- What does "theoretically commands" mean? Not appropriate in the second sentence of an article.
"Lieutenant General normally ranks immediately below a senior rank of General and above Major General. In some countries, it is equivalent to the navy rank of Vice Admiral, and in Commonwealth countries, it is equivalent to Air Marshal in the air force."
- The original you replaced, viz: "In modern armies, Lieutenant General normally ranks immediately below General and above Major General; it is equivalent to the navy rank of Vice Admiral, and in Air Forces with a separate rank structure, it is equivalent to Air Marshal." is more accurate, better grammar, and the same sentence structure as the several dozen other Flag Officer/General Officer ranks articles.
Etc.

As I have said, it's not up to me to defend the consensus that is there; it is up to you to justify your changes. ALL of your changes. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to understand which things you disputed, which is completely fair. The fact that there has been a tag flagging up a lack for sources for two and a half years is a justification for major edits. I will place further discussion on the article talk page. We can discuss the article there in more detail and build up something really good. Mesoso2 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mesoso2: As has been pointed out to you above (by many people on your talk page), there are conventions on how such situations are approached on Wikipedia. You continue to avoid paying any attention to anything anyone is trying to say to you that doesn't match your opinion of how "things should be". What you think is "fair", "right", "your right" and "obvious" doesn't really have very much to do with the issues people are asking you, politely, to address. Could you please address at least some of those issues? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in edit warring. In the interest of good faith, and in an attempt to elicit reasonable behaviour from you, I have gone to considerable effort that WP conventions do not require of me. Could you please go to at least a little effort to think about what others have said to you, and why they might have said them? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as unsourced articles go, the wikipedia convention is that first a tag goes up, and then second, after a reasonable time has been allowed for sources, corresponding changes are made if the sources do not appear. This is what happened. Mesoso2 (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. No. That's the way YOU see it. However, others, (many others), see it differently. (Not just me.) No, I disagree, this is NOT what happened.

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, (Do you know what a cracked record is? Or am I showing my age?), you have completely missed the point that others are trying to bring to your attention. For example, see below.

Your summary of "the problem", (and I agree there is a problem), is very neat and tidy, but it addresses MUCH LESS than 25% of what others see as "the problem". I could be wrong, and am happy to admit it if I am, but I have the impression that you have no idea what the other 75% of "the problem" is.

Now, this may surprise you, but I have a life, and I don't really want to spend LARGE portions of it drawing your attention to reality. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello Mesoso2. A complaint about your editing has been made here. You may join that discussion and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mesoso2 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fact of the matter is that you are NOT being discussed - that isn't/wasn't my intention, nor my desire.

Also, I think categorising it as a "complaint about your editing" is rather vague, ambiguous, and probably misleading.

In my ignorance of this sort of situation, and how to address it, I ended up in the wrong place, asking the wrong questions of the wrong people. Unfortunately, this has/had an indirect impact on you. My apologies. As I said, this is/was neither my intention nor desire.

What I was (and still am) looking for is a non-confrontative way of bringing to your attention that although there is some logic in your arguements, your behaviour in communicating this is somewhat less than ideal.

If you know what I'm talking about, great! Please modify your behaviour accordingly. I have no interest in failing to communicate with someone who has no interest in listening.

On the other hand, if you have no idea what I'm on about, I'd MUCH prefer to try to inform you, than get fed up with you and bring in the heavy artillery.

It's your choice, but be aware that I'm not going to sit back and let you make significant changes to pages without discussion. The pages are in the state they are in as the result of "community tollerance", often euphamistically referred to as "consensus". By changing them without discussion, you are stamping on LOTS of people's toes.

You have pointed out that certain stuff is "bullshit" and other stuff it "wrong". Well maybe it is, but that's not the point. If you don't know what the point is, ask, and I will try to explain.

MBK004 sort of tried to explain, but you didn't want to listen, and he didn't respond well to you implying that only your POV is important. (In his situation, I would probably have responded similarly, if not identically.)

By now you may have worked out that I, also, have little interest in how dedicated you are to your own POV. My preference would be for you to "listen" to what people are politely trying to say to you, and for you to "read between the lines." Believe me, the ONLY person who cares whether you are "right", or "wrong" is you. The rest of the world just wishes you'd stop being an irritating and disruptive nuisance so they can get on with their lives without spending huge amounts of time and effort being polite to you.

Like me, I expect your primary goal is "to 'improve' wikipedia". If so, fantastic! I'm right behind you.

But please, be aware, It Ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pdfpdf has been blocked indefinitely from editing wikipedia. Mesoso2 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mesoso2. You have new messages at Ishdarian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ish dar ian 02:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central Armed Police Force

Hi. Just FYI, blogs (unless very well established and widely regarded as extremely expert within their fields) are simply not acceptable as reliable sources, ever. If you have a link to the relevant publication, use that, or simply cite the publication. Blogs cannot be used as sources, even if only for convenience. → ROUX ₪ 20:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, the blog is not the source. South Asia Defence and Strategic Year Book 2011 is the source. It is reliable. Mesoso2 (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look here [6] you will see you can buy the source online if you like, but professional journals of this calibre don't come cheap, you might prefer to check it in a university library. Mesoso2 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have realised I made a mistake in the edit summary, I now realise "in the public domain" means not covered by intellectual property rights, I meant it is published and available to the general public, like any other publication. My apologies, I will pay more attention to terminology in future! Mesoso2 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we cannot guarantee, because blogs are self-published, that is the actual text. Sorry. → ROUX ₪ 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for wikipedia sources to be online. You are inventing a new wikipedia policy. I am sorry if you cant go to a library, but that is not wikipedia's problem, and it is not mine. If you still object to the source, you must go to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and start a debate to try to get a new policy requiring sources to be available online. Please stop pestering me with your attempt at a new policy, because I do not make wikipedia's policies. Mesoso2 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have I said that sources must be online. What I have said is that blog are not reliable sources. Please read that link. Because a blog is not reliable, using it as a source--which you are doing--for the text is not acceptable. It might be the full and accurate text. We do not know because blogs are inherently unreliable as they are self-published. I would like to know, please, what part of that is not clear to you, because wef seem to have a communication problem here. → ROUX ₪ 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple.

(1) South Asia Defence and Strategic Year Book 2011 is the source, which you keep deleting.

(2) You can't delete a published source on the grounds that you can't find an internet source to confirm the published source.

If this is still not clear, please take this debate to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

If you are interested in online sources, rather than attention-seeking, you can (within 30 seconds) find many online sources confirming the existence and nature of the State Armed Police Forces by typing "State Armed Police Forces" into google. You could even add them to the page, if you are interested in improving wikipedia. Mesoso2 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, take a step back. You have been repeatedly insulting here, and that needs to stop. Are we clear? Good.

If SADSYB is the source, then that should be the source used in the article. Instead, you are linking to a blog, which is not reliable.

Instead of insulting me again, please respond to what I have actually said. Either you understand what I have said and you disagree--in which case you would be wrong, reliable sourcing is non-negotiable--or you do not understand what I have said. If you have not understood, I will be happy to explain again. Which is it? → ROUX ₪ 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained myself, please take this debate to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you still have a problem. Mesoso2 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mossos d'Esquadra may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

The '''Troopers''', in Catalan: '''''Mossos d'Esquadra''''' ({{IPA-ca|ˈmosuz ðəsˈkwaðɾə}}; (literally "Squad Lads", "Squadies") are the [[police]] force of [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm Chris troutman. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Colonel‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to question

Posted on my talk page. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk)
New comment posted. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Semper fidelis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bonhomme Richard and Marine. 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) 08:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

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.

Rank insignia of the German Bundeswehr

added a link pointing to Matrose

Sheriff

added a link pointing to Cork

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified damage to Sheriff article

You removed a very large quantity of information (15kb) from the Sheriff article on April 9th but did not provide any justification to allay concern about the validity of such large-scale apparent damage; nor do I find that you reached consensus to remove so much information. It is necessary to provide edit summaries in general but especially so when hacking out such a huge chunk of text. Is there any reason why I should not reverse your edit? — O'Dea (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste moves are prohibited on Wikipedia

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Guardia di Finanza a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Financial Guard (Italy). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Closeapple (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frontier Force Regiment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Punjabi and Corps of Guides. 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) 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited People's Protection Units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martial Henri Valin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private. 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) 09:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bastille, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Guard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 November 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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Artificer

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Dcirovic (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just in the middle of edits! It is better now. Mesoso2 (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

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.

Zouave

added links pointing to Brazilian and Berber

Zouaoua

added a link pointing to Kabyle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Engineering Arm, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Foreign Legion and Saint-Christol. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zouave, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Constantine and NCO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Aluf into Chiliarch. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~How would I provide attribution to the original contributor? Articles evolve from many contributors over a long time. Please could you give an example, such as what you would do in this case?~~ Mesoso2 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I understand, having looked at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia as you suggested. Mesoso2 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Igawawen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kabyle and Berber. 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) 09:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited INTAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shona. 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) 09:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesian Defence Regiment

You created this article as a stub. Please add suitable verifications or delete the article. Mind that Wikipedia relies on verifiable information! Make sure that u use an appreciable encyclopedic style. Thank you Liechtenstein96 (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mesoso2. 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, Mesoso2. 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, Mesoso2. 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]

Nomination for merging of Template:Navalranks

Template:Navalranks has been nominated for merging with Template:Military ranks. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]