User talk:Mikrobølgeovn

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Yom Kippur War, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hohum (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikrobølgeovn,

I've recently reverted your edit to the Yom Kippur War article. I assume you did see the unmissable banner at the top stating there is a dispute over the article's neutrality. I also assume you're aware of the discussions going on surrounding the article. If not, these discussions are taking place at Talk:Yom Kippur War. Please do not perform edits in such manner as you did, but partake in discussion first. The reason the infobox is limited to Egypt, Syria and Iraq is explained in the talk page. Cheers :-) Sherif9282 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo. I noticed your recent edits and comments to the Second Lebanon War and the Yom Kippur War. I concur with you that both resulted in a tactical military victory for the IDF but more so with respect to the Yom Kippur War, where Egypt and Syria were decidedly defeated.

Some have argued that the results of the Second Lebanon War were somewhat inconclusive because Hezbollah succeeded in firing rocket salvos until the bitter end. While I agree that Israel scored a long-term strategic success in pushing Hezbollah from the border and in essence scored a military victory, there seems to be some controversy on the subject. Therefore, the issue would be better addressed in the prose under "reactions to conflict" section. Placing "Israeli military victory" in the infobox would probably generate an edit war.

However, in the Yom Kippur War, Israel's victory was clear cut. Precluding this from the infobox constitutes a major error of omission. I share your opinion and favor placing "Israeli military victory" in the infobox and have done so but was reverted by the same editor who reverted your edit. I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment but clearly, the article requires a major overhaul, from start to finish. If you have a good in-depth knowledge of the Yom Kippur War and wish to collaborate with me on the subject, Please drop a message on my Talk page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I couldn't agree with you more. I think we should begin with the Yom Kippur war. The article is heavily slanted in favor of a ficticious Egyptian perspective, utilizing Arabic and Russian sources (written in Arabic and Russian!). The article as it stands now is pure fantasy and is almost painful to read. I placed a notice at the top of the article stating that the sources were problematic. Unfortunately, the two antagonistic editors (sherif and RomaC) tag-teamed against me and reverted the notice on three occasions. Wiki policy regarding non-English sources is clear. They can be used only where English sources are not available. This not the case concerning the Yom Kippur War where there is a wealth of English sources - Zeev Schiff, Edward Luttwak, Martin van Creveld and Chaim Herzog just to name a few.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the sources that I've compiled below, one can not come to any other conclusion but "Israeli military victory."

• "The brute statistics of war indicated an Israeli victory," London Sunday Times, Yom Kippur War @ page 450.
• "As a military feat, the IDF’s performance in the Yom Kippur War dwarfed that in the Six Day War. Victory emerged from motivation that came from the deepest layers of the nation’s being and from basic military skills that compensated for the grave errors of leadership," Abraham Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War, @ page 498.
• "[The Yom Kippur War] is the story of an astounding Israeli victory," Chaim Herzog, The War of Atonement, @ Foreword.
• "The war had profound and long-reaching implications for the leaders of Egypt and Syria. Both Egypt's president Sadat and Syrian president Assad recognized that their countries had come closer to catastrophic defeat than in 1967, and that it was absolutely imperative to avoid another war. That led to Sadat's peace and Assad's 1974 cease-fire on the Golan Heights, never violated since then." Edward Luttwak, Misreading the Lebanon war
• "On October 24, 1973 when Israel finally implemented the cease-fire agreement, nothing stood between its advancing troops and the Egyptian capital. Israel had gained complete control over the entire front. Facing an imminent threat to Cairo and hence to the regime itself, President Anwar al-Sadat was desperately seeking heightened Soviet intervention and even direct military involvement to secure an early cease-fire. But for intense American pressure, Israel would have annihilated the stranded and encircled Egyptian Third Army. The story was more or less the same in the north where the Syrian advances in the Golan Heights were stopped and reversed and the outskirts of Damascus were brought within range of Israeli artillery. After initial surprises and setbacks, Israel had bounced back, stopped the Arab offensive and reversed the course of battle. If the Arab military offensive was motivated by a desire to change the status quo in Sinai or the Golan Heights, Israel had throttled them. The October 1973 cease-fire lines significantly improved Israel’s position." P.R. Kumaraswamy, Revisiting the Yom Kippur War
• "Although the Egyptians continue to tout the Yom Kippur war as a great victory, in truth, their successes were modest and their failures equal or greater than their achievements," Kenneth Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991
• "In material terms, the Israelis won a clear victory in the Yom Kippur war. Israel never held more territory than it did at the end of the Yom Kippur War – a war it had supposedly lost. At the cease fire, the Israelis were only fifty miles from Cairo and thirty miles from Damascus. The Soviet ambassador to Egypt Aleksei Kosygin saw the situation in Cairo at the end of the war as a 'catastrophe.' He declared: 'We must have a cease-fire because otherwise, everything will collapse,'" Johnson and Tierney, Failing To Win, Perception of Victory and Defeat in International Politics, @ page 177.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Yom Kippur War was cleary not a military stalemate, which all this sources should prove. Thank you for doing this, I support your work. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin to edit this article shortly. I suggest that you put it on your watchlist as I'm certain there will be lots of objections and reverts to my edits. If you agree (or disagree) with the edits, it is important to voice your opinion on the discussion page and to take an active role in the editing process. I look forward to collaborting with you on this project. Best Regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I am looking forward to this. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I saw your recent comment on the Yom Kippur war talk page here and I too share your concern and frustration over the endless reverts by the POV pushers such as this one by RomaC. I have had issues with him in the past in connection with other articles. I have yet to see him add relevant content or make one productive edit. I have only observed him engage in endless reverts of sourced material. In any event, we need to build consensus. Currently, You and I as well as Megaidler (talk) and Joltinjoe56 (talk) favor "Israeli military victory" in the infobox. Sherif, JohnZ and RomaC oppose. The rest seem to be on the sidelines though I believe that Hohum (talk) and Cptnono (talk) seem to be leaning on our side. In fact, Hohum actually reverted Sherif here and restored my sourced edit concerning IDF victory. I think that it is imperative that all edits be sourced. It is also imperative to effectuate substantive edits within the article itself so that the changes reflect and correlate to the result section of the infobox. In any event, don't dispair and don't give up. You've made some excellent edits thus far. I encourage you to continue. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me this and keeping me updated. Does the other guys have more authority in this issue than us? Sometimes I feel like that's how it is. But one can't ignore evidence. Let's keep this issue up, and don't give up. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the course of the war some 8,400 Egyptians and nearly 400 Syrian plus some 20 Iraqis and Moroccans were captured by the IDF. Yet the article makes no mention of it but strangely (and erroneously) notes IDF POWs. However, I have corrected the problem and have included the Egyptian/Syrian POW figures in the info box. Also, the article erroneously states that 500 Israelis were captured when in fact, 293 were captured. I've made the correction and I congratulate you on your excellent edits. Well done! Warmest Regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems like you have a much higher level of knowledge than me on this spot. Thank your very much for all you have done. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to merge List of wars 1900-1944 with List of wars 1945-1989 and add 1990-1999 wars so it cabe List of wars 1900-1999, just like List of wars 1800-1899. Please leave a comment at Talk:List of wars 1945-1989 in support of my plan. B-Machine (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you support my plan, leave a comment at Talk:List of wars 1945–1989 stating your support. B-Machine (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I reformed the list of wars 2003-current article. B-Machine (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Cuba fought alongside Belgium in the Congo Crisis? B-Machine (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know much about the Congo Crisis. The only thing I am sure about, is that Cuba has played a key role in Africa during the 20th century. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikrobolgeovn. You have made many contentious edits to the South Lebanon Conflict article. Because you have not cited reliable sources, and in fact removed reliable sources, replacing their content with counterfactual claims, I have reverted your edits. If you would like to contribute to this article, please be sure you can back up your claims with reliable third-party sources. As you can see, the article in its present form cites more than 22 news and historical sources from all perspectives - but your changes are unsupported by historical fact. For example, in this edit, you changed the outcome of an operation. This edit is counter-factual and is not supported by the numerous sources cited in the article. Please do not disrupt the article in this way. If you have information to add, it must be cited from a reliable, encyclopedic source, consistent with our Wikipedia policy. Nimur (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After briefly reviewing your talk page and your contributions, it seems that you have a history of making counter-factual edits to pages about the conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this way, you may be subject to an edit review, administrative action, or even a block from editing. Nimur (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you understand that I never tried to disrupt Wikipedia. The reason why I removed the sources from the article, was because I thought they were irrelevant (which was obiviously wrong, and I'm sorry). I am trying to contribute, but have made several mistakes. I still don't understand where my edition is counter-factual, so a further explanation of this will of course help me to prevent this in the future. Sorry for making trouble for you guys. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to contribute. These articles in particular are difficult to keep in good shape - because they are easily politicized. For this reason, we need high quality sources. For example, one specific issue which I brought up above was your edit that changed the outcome of the Litani Operation from a military retreat to a military success. Numerous historical sources agree on what actually happened. If you really feel that this is incorrect, the burden of proof is on you to find evidence to support this claim. Similarly, your other edits must also be backed up by reputable, encyclopedic-quality sources. Nimur (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advices. The Litani Operation was not just a military withdrawal; In fact, PLO retired from South Lebanon before IDF retired. Israel made it to clear of the border, and then the UN buffer was established. The article itself tells the entire story, and to me, this seems like a indisputable Israeli success. I did not thought that I needed a source, as the article itself, in my opinion, made this go without saying. Appearently, I was wrong.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Why do you think this is a war?--DAI (Δ) 13:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's just as much as the 2010 Eritrea–Ethiopia border skirmish. I think it that was not a war, but a smaller clash or a conflict. There is many smaller conflicts in the lists.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikrobølgeovn,

This is debatable but not exactly inaccurate. The only quibble I have is that few of the KR bases destroyed remained so; in general they were reoccupied within weeks. Also the KR were not the only group affected--the VN destroyed ANS bases and KPNLF bases too, so it doesn't make much sense to put this in an infobox as a "result".

I don't know what your level of expertise on this topic is, but it would be prudent to edit articles on which you have fairly significant knowledge.

Respectfully, Cmacauley (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I saw you have interest in Israel's history I thought you might be interested in helping me translate these two important articles[1][2] to the Norwegian Wikipedia (they currently only have one article about the middle east conflict). Unfortunately my Norwegian writing skills aren’t good enough to do this by myself (I am much better in speaking Norwegian though). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The first of these articles is included in this article, which describes both the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian. I might though be interested in doing some effort with the second one, so I'll see what I can do. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is part of the Arab–Israeli conflict (which is called in Norwegian "Midtøsten-konflikten"), these conflicts shouldn't be mixed up together into one article in the way they currently are in the Norwegian Wikipedia. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, I am kinda busy with exams at this time of year. I will try to contribute as best as I can. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I have created machine translations of these articles in my sandbox. I hope that you would be able to help me translate them. In fact, take as much time as you need doing so, I will reffrain translating them myself for at least a month. Any help you can give would be highly appriciated. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe you would find the time to help out with the translation/s ? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to, but at this moment I am very busy with exams and that kind of stuff. I'm sorry, but if I were you I would not rely on me. I would of course like to help, but I really don't think I've got the time. I'm sorry.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated the first part of the article now.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your contribution in Phong Nha-Ke Bang. I wish you could continue help me in Vietnamese topics in the near future. I am ready to translate Norway-related topics soon. At present, we are at peace. We have had peace since we ceased Sino-Vietnamese conflicts 1979-1990. Nice to know you.Genghiskhan (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Vietnam participated in both the Thai-Laotian Border War and the 1997 clashes in Cambodia. Although Vietnam itself has been in peace the last years, it's armed forces might still have participated in conflicts in other countries. Do you know if Vietnamese soldiers has been stationed to fight in another country in recent years? With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might answer your question. I hope there's more. You never learn (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made new edits on the article and I'm expecting for answers in the talk page. In the talk page, you may watch the sections dealing with the infobox / belligerents, the infobox / result, the casualties and the aid. I hope we will finally reach a consensus in some issues. This message was sent to many editors. Megaidler (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very busy with work lately and haven't had the time to engage in any productive editing. I took a glance at the Gaza and Yom Kippur War pages and was distressed to see these articles degenerate into pure revisionism. It appears that those who have an interest in furthering an agenda have had their way at the expense of truth and accuracy. It's a damn shame.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, could you check to see whether Vietnam had participated in the Franco-Thai War? And take a look at this source.

Also, from Sep 1945 to Mar 1946, I don't know whether the VNPA had fought alongside the Viet Minh against the British and French forces, could you check this too? You never learn (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is called "Japan alternative history". I've never heard aboat a Thai-Vietnamese war in 1972. It seems like it is actually talking about the Sino-Vietnamese War, and have just mixed some countries and changed the locations and dates. I'm sorry, but I believe that the page you referred to is not reliable.

I am also not sure whether or not the VPNA was the same thing as Viet Minh during the first Indochinese war. I think further research is needed. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Franco-Thai War? According to source that I provide, did Vietnam have participated in that conflict? I have intention to create an article named War in Vietnam (1945-1946) that describe the war from Sep 1945 to Mar 1946 between the British-Indian-French forces against the Viet Minh. Since the VNPA was already formed since 1944, I wonder if it had fought against the British or not.

I also even want to create an article named War in Vietnam (March–December 1946) that decribes the conflict in Vietnam after the British-Indian withdrawal from Vietnam until December 19, when the First Indochina War officially started. You never learn (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam did not exist when the Franco-Thai War was fought. However, it would be very interesting if you created the two articles you mentioned, and I will propably be interested in translating those articles into Norwegian.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe its troops had fought in the war along with the French. You never learn (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French Army might have included Vietnamese soldiers, but that doesn't make the Socialist Republic of Vietnam a combatant in a war that occured before it gained it's independence. In the article, French Indochina is included in the infobox as a combatant. I think that's all what we need.

Wikipedia has too less information about the conflict between the British-Indian forces and Viet Minh. If you would like to start these articles, then I will propably make an effort to get them translated into Norwegian. Respectfully, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interrest in this conflict? There are several different claims to this conflict. Some say that it only refers to the Sino-Vietnamese War. But a lot of other sources say that it includes both the Cambodian-vietnamese and Sino-Vietnamese wars. And other sources claim that it also even include the Sino-Vietnamese and Thai-Vietnamese border conflicts of the 1980s. What do you think?

Currently, the name Third Indochina War is redirected to the Sino-Vietnamese War. In my opinion, I agree with this claim, that the term Third Indochina War should refer to all the conflicts between Vietnam, Cambodia, China, and Thailand, not just the Sino-Vietnamese War. You never learn (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those conflicts belong in the same category - namely, the Third Indochina War. I don't think that they were the same war, but they are highly related to each other. So yes, I support your claim. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Indochina War? Decisive Israeli Victory! (joking, no offense intended) RomaC (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's another debate.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, alright, I admit that was very funny :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody totally messed up the Mau Mau Uprising article. Want to help in fixing it? B-Machine (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to, but I'm on vacation right now and my knowledge on this subject is limited. So I'm sorry, but I can't help right now.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, since it didn't seem like much discussion was going on in the 2006 Lebanon War article I thought it might be best if we discuss it with others rather than let it become an edit war, the ANI page is here[3].My apologies over the lack of proper format--Freepsbane (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for taking care of the issue. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting reading material concerning the second intifada

• The Intifada is over – just listen Zeev Chafetz, 22 July 2004

• winning the counterinsurgency war- The Israeli experience Major-General (res) Yaakov Amidror

• Must Counterinsurgency Wars Fail? EuropeNews 9 September 2008

• The need for decisive victory BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 57, January 12, 2009

• The “Defensive Shield” Operation as a Turning Point in Israel’s National Security Strategy, Dr. Wallace A. Terrill and Lieutenant Colonel Ofek Bouchriss, USAWC Strategy Research Project, U.S. Army War College

Best regards--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot, it's great to hear from you again. I will have a look at it when I've got time. Cheers :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sources support your recent edit concerning IDF tactical victory on Second Intifada. They are all RS. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will propably make another attempt sooner or later, but I don't think it would be a good idea if I try to play solo again, because I don't spend so terribly much time in front of the computer at the moment. Do you know about any other users who agrees? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not solo on this, plus you have RS backing. As long as you comply with WP:BRD and your sources are WP:RS and verifiable per WP:V, (which these are), it shouldn't be a problem.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will propably do something about this, but I am not able to handle the subsequent discussions on my own because I simply don't have time. Is there any other users than me and you who agree and are willing to participate on the discussion page? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but I have already discussed the matter with User:Sean.hoyland (the editor who reverted you)[4] and he is Okay with your edit as long as it's reliably sourced. The reason he reverted you in the first place was because he thought your source was sub par and he was probably correct. But now you have numerous sources that are much more reliable and credible so there should be no problem.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll fix it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have some problems with the sources used and I raised them on the talk page. Thanks, nableezy - 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look but my time is somewhat limited. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether these are reliable sources, you can check: http://www.cam111.com/photonews/2011/02/18/78977.html, http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2011/02/vietnamese-tanks-moving-to-preah-vihear.html, http://khmerization.blogspot.com/2011/02/vietnamese-tanks-on-road-to-preah.html, http://khmernz.blogspot.com/2008/10/thai-tv-was-warned-about-its-coverage.html. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very, very much. I've been looking for something like this for a while. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam officially denies sending troops to the Cambodian-Thai border, and the statements are unconfirmed. However, secrecy is not something new in Indochina. I will follow the development closely from now on. Again, thank you. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam troops went to Cambodia for Thai-Cambodian border temple conflict? No Sir, if that event had occured, we would have read this on many famous international newspapers and the government of Thailand will lodge their protest to the United Nations immediately. Hope to co-operate with you. If you need any help, please contact me. Genghiskhan (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbs didn't capitulate, there are hardly any reliable or verifiable sources to confirm that. Wikipedia is based on verifibility, so please don't use that term. The main article on the Kosovo war also doesn't state in the results section that the Serbs capitulated or even that the war ended in a KLA/NATO victory. There are very few if any at all reliable sources that confirm the bombing as a clear-cut NATO victory. Actualy most politicians and analysts even today when talking about it call it NATO's "victory" with a sarcastic remark on the victory term because the Americans were the only ones who declared it as such. The facts are the war ended with the Kumanovo agreement and the UN resolution 1244. And as such, for the sake of compromise, so there wouldn't be any edit wars I suggested to user Bobrayner that we don't put the NATO or Serb claims of victory at all. We put in the results section the same thing that is in the Kosovo war results section. That the war ended with the Kumanovo agreement and the UN resolution 1244. And All neccesery information is in those two articles so let readers make their own conclusions on who won since, there is no historicly unified oppinion on who won and it is still disputed by both sides even today (and I don't mean just the Serbs and NATO). This way the result is neutral. Since Bobrayner didn't revert my edit since than I assume he doesn't have any problem with that. In the future, if you want to add a result it must be sourced. For now this is the historicly agreed upon result of the war. The war ended in a peace accord. For examples of these kinds of results for wars on Wikipedia see these articles [5][6][7]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here. "On June 3, 1999 Milošević capitulated and accepted peace conditions.[51][52]". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy that is baddly written by the editor who put the sentance there. Because capitulation is not in the sources provided (51,52). What is in the sources is that Milosevic accepted the terms of an international peace plan for Kosovo and that he accepted settlement terms. Not once is capitulation mentioned. Will need to rewritte that sentance so it represents properly what is in the sources. Listen, the way it is now is just fine. The war ended with the Kumanovo agreement and UN resolution 1244. Nobody is stating anybody won. I proposed this, because if we let it stay one side had won, than there would have been more edit wars in the future between other editors. This is neutral wording. EkoGraf (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis, there's a discussion about merging Second Ivorian Civil War into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis. If you want to participate, please do so. B-Machine (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you didn't mean 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis being merged into Second Ivorian Civil War? Anyway, thanks for letting me know. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the discussion on belligerents of the North Yemen Civil War, you are most invited to join the renewed discussion on this issue. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I continued the same thread on Iranian involvement in the war, if you have any idea on Iranian onvolvement pls give an opinion.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hizbollah4.tif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for informing me. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikrobølgeovn. I know you have previously made many contributions to the article Wars involving Israel and therefore I assume that you have a lot of knowledge in this topic as well. I would appreciate any help you can provide in the improvement of this article as well. I now especially want to see this article improved after it has been suggested in the discussion page of the article that it should be deleted. This article was created by me as a prelude to the article Wars involving Israel which contains an outline of the wars involving Israel, and as such I believe that this article too would be of great importance to the users whom would also want to get an outline of the violent conflicts involving the Yishuv which preceded the establishment of the state of Israel. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of wars involving Lebanon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PLA (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) 10:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19770726&id=xKNVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m9kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5023,6244203

And even your source says that both Libya and Egypt had military retreat, so it wasn't a defeat at all. Second thing is, i have added "United States" as supported by in Libyan-Chadian War, just like there is added in other pages like:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Iraq

That's it . Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt retreated after a ceasefire was called, while the Libyan invasion of Egypt was repelled by Egyptian forces. Do you see the difference here? Libya did not voluntarely withdraw from Egypt, but its limited invasion got forcefully pushed back. On the contrary, Egypt withdrew after meditation by Algeria, and did so after the fighting had ceased. The withdrawal can therefore not be attributed to any Libyan resistance, as this ceased before the retreat itself took place.

Furthermore, there was no US military presence in Chad. It might have sent material aid to the French, but this is not by far the same as deploying its own forces on the battlefield. Unless you have a source that clearly proves direct US military intervention on behalf of the French in Chad, it should be removed from the list.

That's the reasons for my edits. Please feel free to address me again if you have any further issues, and have a nice weekend. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libya attacked Egypt, i have read that Egypt were trying to steal oil, although egypt denied it.. But point is that both nations were never going to stop attacking each other. It was the Algeria's president who made both of the nation stop, so they retreated. So you should revert the edit from libyan - eygpt war page too, as it remained such type, for long as well.Clarificationgiven (talk)

As for the United states' role in Chadian war, i think it's enough that i would change 'supported by' to 'aided by', because they played really important role according to there own self admission. Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source I provided (acig.org), it was the Libyans who initiated hostilities by attacking Egyptian border posts. The Egyptians repelled the attack, and when the ceasefire came into effect, the frontline had been moved to the Libyan side of the border. Libya didn't just simply 'withdraw' from Egypt, they got pushed back.

And again - there was absolutely no American military presence in Chad. It would be wrong to include a country which never sent its own troops to fight on the frontline. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the source supplied by you does not say anything about whether it was a voluntarely retreat og an outright defeat, but only states that the ceasefire was in effect. It has nothing to say about the outcome at all, except the fact that it clearly reveals that the frontline had indeed been pushed to the Libyan side of the border: ...a Libyan diplomat in Rome claimed there was fighting Monday in two Libyan oases. Your statement is counterfactual, and should be removed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about 'your source' and 'my source', many sources directly says that libya won the war butwe are adding what it actually was, and only the newspaper is reliable source for it, no body mentions that egypt won except you, but it's not about personal liking. And like in other war pages we have added 'supported by' we should add united states because it helped chad. Clarificationgiven (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention the word "victory" in my last edit. Your source does simply not support your view that the Libyans voluntarely withdrew from Egypt, while my source indeed proves the Libyans got pushed into their own country by military means. This has nothing to do with my personal liking, but is based on established information.

And again - there was absolutely no American combat troops in Chad. The US was not a combatant in this conflict, simply because it wasn't involved with its own troops. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikrobølgeovn. You have new messages at Talk:List of wars involving Egypt.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it "military retreat" in Egypt-Libya's war result because that is what your sources actually confirms as well, End of the story. Clarificationgiven (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sources clearly state that the Libyans got pushed out of Egypt, and my sources as well as your source confirms that the frontline had been pushed to the Libyan side of the frontier when the ceasefire was called. Please read my quotation in my last edit, as well as the newspaper article your provided. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you found such quote which says that frontline was pushed out? Whole article contained no such words, and it's impossible to claim that Egypt won as well. Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countrystudies.org; Mutual suspicion between Sadat and Qadhafi, plus Egyptian charges of Libyan subversion, led to a brief but sharp shooting war along their common frontier in July 1977. Egyptian forces advanced a short distance into Libya before Algerian mediation ended the fighting. (proves the war was ended on the Libyan side of the border)

Acig.com; Quotation here (proves Gaddafi initiated hostilities)

Your reference; ...a Libyan diplomat in Rome claimed there was fighting Monday in two Libyan oases. (confirms that the war ended on the Libyan side)

All this proves that the frontline had indeed been replaced to the Libyan side of the border. This, and the fact that the war was initiated by Libyan forces1, is in my opinion enough to conclude that the Libyans had indeed been militarily defeated - or at least forcibly pushed out of Egypt. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That only speaks, the egyptian army had came into libya's border or area, nothing like there was any end of the war or win/defeat, both of the nation drawn back there forces after the mediation of Algerian president.Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt withdrew after a ceasefire accord which both parties agreed upon, while Libya got forcibly pushed back. The war ended on Libyan territory. Don't you get it? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libya's forces were still fighting, so were egyptians, there's no sign of victory or defeat either, this case is even easier than solving the korean war, to be honest.Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As confirmed by sources, the Libyans attacked and got repulsed, and Egypt subsequently occupied parts of Libya until their eventual withdrawal following the ceasefire. It's obvious to all that this was a clear cut defeat for Gaddafi and his forces. No sources what-so-ever has confirmed or even supported your view, while the real line of events has been repeated again and again by every source, even the one supplied by you. Why do you keep arguing on this? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because any kind of stories can be made regarding the subject, but it doesn't changes that there was no win or defeat, just like the actual information in such pages have been added here.Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a loose statement without further substantiation. By the way; The difference between South Korea and Egypt is that while South Korea repelled the North, they later got repelled themselves by the Chinese intervention. Egypt meanwhile was never pushed back from the parts of Libya which they occupied, and pulled back after a ceasefire was in place. In other words, this cannot be compared with the Korean War. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no victory or loose in that war either, how about sino soviet war from 1969?? So just keep the details "Military retreat" because that's what actual fact is.Clarificationgiven (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. Do you even read what I'm saying? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no independent verification, except for the term military retreat, just keep it as it is. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is. I have repeated this numerous times. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about win or defeat.Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libya was repelled and Egypt prevailed. Isn't it a clear-cut? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of wars involving Cuba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rebel (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) 04:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marada old.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barzani (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) 11:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hezbollah flag.tif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of wars involving South Africa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 38th parallel

List of wars involving South Korea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 38th parallel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th parallel (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) 14:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Indo-Pakistan War of 1965 ended in a cease fire but India was viewed as the victor worldwide and Both sides did not claim victory.

India might very possibly have won. However, you need to address the [talk page of that article] if you want to change the infobox, as whether I agree or disagree with you isn't really of any importance here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Norway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Copenhagen (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) 15:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added Israel to the infobox again without consensus. Can you remove it? I've run out of reverts for the day.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That discussion is just growing more and more ridiculous every day. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mikrobølgeovn, Serbia did sufered air attack, but Croatia did not managed to make Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia and Bosnians did not managed to save its country from Serbians. Again, I am Serbian and according to Dayton accords Republika Srpska is made as autonomus province in use of Perublic of Serbia. There are Serbians who live there and have big rights. I just say that Serbia won that war because of these folowing things: -creation of Republika Srpska, -less casualities than Bosnians, -Serbians as mayority in Bosnia.

I also think that we can work together and I wish to join Wiki project:Serbia. No problem for help and good luck in working! See you next time, Vlada 1912. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlada1912 (talk

2006 Lebanon War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2006 Lebanon War/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Nice work on List of wars involving Iran. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome!!! Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mikrobølgeovn can you help me improve List of wars involving India page since you have done an amazing job on List of wars involving Iran also I want to merge List of wars involving Maratha Empire but I don't know how? Any help would be kind. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help. But I'm not sure how you intend to structure that list. First; Should we include wars and conflicts that was fought when India was under foreign rule, and if yes, then to what extent must India be involved for such conflicts to be included (material aid, volunteers, troops etc.)? Second, we need a clear definition of 'war'. Technically, the Insurgency in Northeast India and in Jammu and Kashmir are not 'wars', but low-intensity conflicts, and I personally would prefer to keep those in the footnote section. What to you think? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I put British India there is because I think it is right since modern India did retain all the history and also the name. And to what extent? Indian troops have to be involved, no volunteers, or material aid. I agree Insurgency in Northeast India and Jammu and Kashmir should just be put in the "See also" category but Operation Blue Star needs to stay since it did involve the military. I hope that answered your questions?, also what are your thoughts about the Chola incident? Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

300 Chinese troops killed? Last time I checked, it was 10 killed, with this site listed among the sources. I find it very hard to believe that last change can be accurate, and I think that had this indeed been considered a war, we wouldn't have talked about the Sino-Indian War anymore. I have given up trying to remove it after a long edit war which I should probably have avoided in the first place.

It must be noted that I am not an expert in neither Indian nor Iranian history, and my guess is that you know far more about Indian history than me. Please don't hesitate to revert me if you feel I'm making a mistake, ok? :)

Regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both have been involved in trying to remove it from the list [8] as you can see but due to one person's view won't let me change it so I just let the baby have his bottle for now. Don't worry I will fix if any mistakes are there but overall you do an amazing job when it comes to the list of wars pages just an outstanding work you have done. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have made some improvements, but you have already done most of the job, and I think you deserve some credit for your work on that article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Owselore. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Yom Kippur War because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Removing unsourced content Reverting vandalism Mikrobølgeovn Please stop your vandalism and copyrights violates Owselore (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yom Kippur War, you may be blocked from editing. Iraq and Jordan were not directly involved in the war please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia Owselore (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...excuse me? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently passed the article The Gaza War, also known as Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) and Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎) as fit for public view/consumption, and yet I see this in the text: '[a]n IDF probe, released on April 22, 2009, stated that a UN vehicle was attacked by Israeli forces because a Palestinian anti-tank squad was being unloaded from the vehicle.' How on earth was such a comment allowed to let stand, considering the seriousness of its very implication? I expect swift action to be taken regarding such a gross misrepresentation toward the highest legislating body in existence, as well as due notice in regard to various issues outlined on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.225.255 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye on Template:scwinfobox and Talk:Syrian civil war#Status of Israel? I fear that another edit war might break out soon. Thanks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to, but I'm currently really busy with midterms and probably won't have time to engage actively in discussions. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For finally reaching an agreement on Talk:Yom Kippur War. Thanks for being patient. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (although I will insist YOU were the patient one) :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i guess i was a bit too rushing in the beginning myself when i wanted to remove several countries and replace them by Arab League. So i'm glad you came up with the solution of simply mentioning combat support. I'm personally satisfied with the outcome and i hope you are as well.

And of course, good luck with your exams! ;) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really am - I -hate- it when infoboxes lists too many "supporters" that didn't really play any significant role (if playing a role at all), and I', glad you brought up the issue. Good luck with your exams too, and I hope we can work together in the future as well :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Ersroitasent (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your high-quality "argument" ("their troops arrived too late") has has already been proven wrong on the same talk page. I advise you to read the old discussion before kicking off a new one. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What proven wrong..... What... they DID Not participate in major combat--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the sources you keep deleting. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should be interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afmatpesr. Regards. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

was not valid. Please see WP:OWNTALK. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disturbing when users delete their warnings and continue edit warring like before, but rules are rules. Thanks for notifying me. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of wars involving Cyprus 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/List of wars involving Cyprus 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cabinda War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FAC. 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) 09:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources[9][10] ever mentioned any "victory" or "defeat". We have best evidence for a ceasefire but not more than that. Check WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source says Egypt repelled the Libyan invasion of Sallum, an that Egyptian forces were occupying Libyan territory when the war ended. I don't see how it can be disputed that Libya lost militarily, and it shouldn't be hard to find alternative sources. I'm very busy right now, but I'll see if I can look into it later. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This File:Flag of Libya 1972-1977 not correct, conflict started in 1977 and since 1977 changed to another flag please to see other wikies and not start edit war. Best regards--Poti Berik (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the dates. The flag was changed a few months after the war. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then try to change flag in article in the other segments of Wikipedia (french wikipedia, russian wikipedia, ukrainian wikipedia, norwegian wikipedia, german wikipedia and others) but for now do not need to reverting my edit and please refer reliable source. Best regards--Poti Berik (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then the other Wikis are wrong. Besides, Wikipedia can never use itself as a source. Why do you feel so deeply for this anyway? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Because they are all different from this is, and secondly in the Ukrainian Wikipedia is written that the USSR and the United States supported sides. And did not have to reverting my edits it annoys me greatly! Best regards--Poti Berik (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I keep reverting you because you are wrong, and you know it. If the date in the main article is wrong, feel free to change it. And also, Historyguy is a blog, not a reliable source. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you removed several conflicts? Please explain on the talk page and please use edit summaries. Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 14:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because they were either peripheral or irrelevant (for instance, the Continuation War was part of WWII on the Eastern Front). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are well-sourced articles for these conflicts and it seems they should remain unless a consensus is reached on the talk page to remove them. APK whisper in my ear 14:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Continuation War and the Lapland War were part of WWII, 1953 wasn't a war, Laos was non-combat, and Indo-Pakistan was complete bs. I've lost my patience with IP's adding random conflicts and random combatants, and I'm tired of having to explain it every damn time. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Costa Rica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anastasio Somoza. 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) 08:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

I'm sorry, but I really can't see any exceptions for your edit war at List of wars involving Cyprus. While I understand that there is a problematic edit warrior making things a mess, I simply don't see any overt vandalism. If you can show me something mitigating, or pledge to avoid 3RR in cases like this in the future, I'd be happy to unblock. Kuru (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's fine - I know I went too far, and although I stand by what I intended to do (namely, to prevent nationalist propaganda from standing; articles like these are frequent victims of such activities), I realize I should have left the matter to an administrator to handle. I still wonder whether it's worth the time dealing with such users the buerocratic way (as this will inevitably lead to bias/vandalism remaining in the articles until someone else takes care of it), but I have no problem promising to refrain from breaking the 3RR in the future. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mikrobølgeovn has worked on very controversial articles for so many years and he is not a rigid edit warrior, I am supporting an unblock. He can be believed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great response; I'll unblock. I often wonder if it's worth the time as well. Kuru (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very grateful. Cheers! --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikrobølgeovn. There is a problem in the article of Israeli Prime Ministers. I tried to include the last government of Netanyahu, but the format is wrong, because the 34th government appears separated below the picture. I was hoping you could fix it. Thanks.--Averysoda (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Somebody already fixed it.--Averysoda (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please do not just remove content that revolves around my dispute with 1 editor—the history of which you perhaps zero knowledge of. If you go on greysharks talk page history then you will find 2 occassions where he has removed my discussion of the topic without even giving the courtesy of any reply. If you read those then you will find a continuation of the discussion of the article issue and i think a decisive solution.120.18.2.3 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the relevant talk page, as this has been discussed before. Until then, please refrain from further reverts (otherwise you may be reported for edit warring). Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so i pasted the discussion i told you about on the talk page and i dont think it fair if my edit be removed without a convincing reply against my points raised.120.18.18.186 (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one denies that Israel supported the royalists through material aid, but previous consensus deemed this not noteworthy in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue in the discussion was the need for a reliable source, which i have provided. It seems almost ludicrous to claim that it is non-notable when a very simple word search of israel in the article mentions that word a significant number of times.120.18.163.57 (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what I wrote. No one denies Israel supported the royalists, but that's not the issue here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have taken our issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--125.255.33.9 (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added comments to a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard after I had already closed the thread. Maybe the browser that you are using does not show that the thread is closed. If it did, then expanding the thread to add to it is not useful, because the comments will be ignored. If you want to request discussion of the North Yemen Civil War and can frame it as a content dispute, discussion might take place. (The request was closed because the filing party, rightly or wrongly, referred to vandalism.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He did not, the title was referring to the discussion page of the article. The dispute remains unsolved, and I suggest reopening the thread (and rename it if necessary). Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had to resubmit the DR. Please see noticeboard again.--125.255.33.9 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to List of wars involving Oman seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain it was a mistake, as I barely changed any of the content. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your current change seems fine. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving Serbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doclea. 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) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A user is trying to destroy the reached consensus for the result — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.170.158.75 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert [11] removes lots of constructive contributions.. As for result, A ""Strategic victory"" proclaimed by Hezbollah and cited is just fine...... PS: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim 495656778774 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the infobox alone while the proposed edit is discussed at the talk page - the current version is the result of a long-lasting discussion. On a note, I recommend you mind the 1RR. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know there are sources. I read them. None of them say that Russia is sending troops to fight in Syria.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph says the soldiers seen might be independent contractors, not from the Russian military.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted the reports as more or less official, with the alleged status of the soldiers being merely a speculation. But are you fine with leaving the infobox as it is (alleged Russian involvement) for the time being? I am sure more details will surface in the coming days and weeks. Cheers, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit at AN3. You should accept that admins are not likely to take any definite action against a user based on recent events. The present contents of the article look unusual to me, but your best option is to negotiate on talk pages. There are probably one or more WikiProjects to which this article would be relevant. Try to get outside opinions and consider using WP:DRN. Regarding correct usage of terms like 'victory' and 'defeat' you could ask for help at WT:MILHIST. By the way, just by referring to linked articles you can tell that many wars have been left out. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is not a new issue, and that article has a history of being disrupted by users with clear nationalist agendas. With this particular user being impossible to communicate with (yes, I've made several attempts), he is essentially free to carry on edit warring until he "wins" in the sense that other users grow tired of it. I believe a third-party intervention might be necessary, but I'll give it some time and see if I'll use WP:DRN. Again, thanks for getting back to me. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe that you may be concerned by this report on WP:ANI. Thank you. --GGT (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of wars involving Russia, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You both are edit warring and have violated 3RR, you need to take this issue to talk SantiLak (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the same warning on the other user who is involved's talk page. - SantiLak (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring, I'm removing vandalism. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a content dispute, what they're doing doesn't at all meet the definition of vandalism on WP. - SantiLak (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content dispute - Courtier1978 is intentionally adding wrong information to make a point, hence vandalism. I will keep reverting those edits if they persist, because stating Russia won WWI is simply ludicrous. At the very least, he should address the main article before touching navigation tools (and I've told him this before). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Not Vandalism, as much as it may not belong on WP, it does not qualify for the definition of Vandalism. If you keep reverting the edits you will be blocked, it will happen, you both need to stop, go on the talk page and discuss it. - SantiLak (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That basically means he will get his way. Your decision. I have better things to do than lecturing Courtier1978 on why Russia lost World War I. Let me ask you: If someone (for comparison) insisted on changing the outcome of World War II to "decisive Axis victory" for whatever reason, would you not revert that edit immediately? Are we even supposed to take such behavior seriously? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean he will get his way, go to talk, other editors may contribute to the discussion as well, you may be right, he may be right, i'm not judging the outcome right now, that's what i'm here to do. I'm here to tell you that you need to stop editing the page and if he continues to do it, I will tell him the same, and you also need to go to talk and discuss it. That's how wikipedia works and you're just going to have to live with it, I know your feeling right now and i've felt it in situations before, but you need to stop edit warring and go to discussion. - SantiLak (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By now, it's rather tempting to call it quits and let vandals flood Wikipedia with nonsense as much as they want (with the passive blessing of admins). This is not a case of "you may be right, he may be right" - ANYONE familiar with military history would immediately shoot Courtier1978 down. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a hard time understanding that you don't get to edit war just because you think you're right, you have to discuss it on the page, or resolve it through other avenues available, but not edit warring. Here's a suggestion that might help, post to the WikiProject Military history talk page and ask other editors for their input on the discussion. Just post and ask for their input, not much else especially not a detailed backstory of the whole dispute, if you're right they probably will support your position, it will help resolve this more quickly. - SantiLak (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed your advice. I know you mean well, and I'm sorry your time has been wasted on this, but this whole episode has been a lot more tiring than it had to be. Like I said, this is not a content dispute, and hopefully the intervention of someone from the military history project will show that. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrobølgeovn, this notice is intended to advise you that WP:ARBMAC sanctions are applicable to areas of your recent edits, including Cyprus and List of wars involving Russia. There are a wide range of possible sanctions available. Kindly please remember WP:FIVEPILLARS in your editing. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBMAC is not applicable. Please see my comments at EdJohnston's talkpage. Dr. K. 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Eastern Europe, 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from reverting to the previous revision, as the medieval conflicts are included at List of wars involving Serbia in the Middle Ages. The hatnote and introduction clearly states this, in case you did not notice.--Zoupan 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the split, as it was completely unneccessary and was never brought up at the discussion page. Also, it makes the title of the article misleading. Is there no way you would support a re-merger? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the title is already misleading, pointing to wars, the medieval conflicts were of various significance and cannot be put side by side with modern conflicts. Also, one should note that the lists are terribly ambiguous, are these wars involving the [modern] state or wars fought on the territory of modern states throughout time immemorial? I am against mixing Roman-era conflicts and those of modern states, obviously.--Zoupan 21:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why against keeping them in the same article? Surely, Serbia is Serbia, Roman-era or modern? I won't make a big deal about this, but I really don't get what your objection is. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the thing, is "Serbia is Serbia, Roman-era or modern" plausible? The medieval Serbian states included parts of the neighbouring [modern] countries, while neighbouring [modern] countries included parts of what is today Serbia in the Middle Ages. Disambiguate where necessary. Simply put, modern era ≠ prehistory.--Zoupan 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still hold there is enough continuity to stick to one list, both I won't insist. List of wars involving Serbia should probably be renamed then, perhaps figuring out a new title is a good task for you? Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]