User talk:Posse72

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Posse72. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your content on your userpage

The text you have on your user page has been noticed, and it has been seen by people on En:wiki as being on the border of offensiveness. (see sv:wikipediadiskussion:ambassaden). Is it possible for you to modigy it, or perhaps take it to your talk page so we could discuss your concerns further? Wanpe 14:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Continuation War. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Continuation War. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility on Talk:Continuation War

Several of your edits ([1], [2]) to Talk:Continuation War appear to violate the official WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF policies. Please comment on content, not the contributor. Thank you, --Kralizec! (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill actually think knowledge is what the article is lacking the moste.--Posse72 (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Stlemur (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kohteliaisuudesta

Moi! Alice on oikeassa, että sinun tulisi esittää mielipiteesi kohteliaammin ja välttää kaikinpuolista leimaamista, oli sitten syytä tahi ei. Vaikka Bobin lähteidenkäyttö on hiukan omavaltaista, niin muista että editoimme englanninkielistä Wikipediaa, jolloin on ymmärrettävää, että brittejä ja amerikkalaisia koskevat tapahtumat saavat ylikorostuneen arvon; Sama esiintyy esim. ruotsalaisessa kirjallisudessa Talvi- ja Jatkosotaa koskevassa kirjallisuudessa, joissa ruotsalaiset vapaaehtoiset saavat suhteettoman suuren määrän tekstiä heidän merkitykseensä nähden. Brittien 151 Lentueen tarina tulee siirtymään omaan artikkeliinsa, olen siitä varma, mutta ole kiltti ja esitä kritiikkisi Bobin tekstiä kohtaan kohteliaasti, nimittelemättä ja puuttuen yksilöidysti niihin kohtiin, joissa hän selvästi ekstrapoloi käyttämäänsä lähdettä. Hampdeneiden lentoa koskeva viimeisin kommenttisi oli hyvä, mutta se olisi ollut vielä paljon parempi, jos olisit malttanut jättää asiaankuulumattomat syytökset ja nimittelyt pois. Mutta jatka ehdottomasti kommentointia ja kirjoitusta! --Whiskey (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English translation of the above :

Goodness. Alice is really right in telling you that if you continue your record of angry postings it is likely to result in you being banned. Although Bob’s postings are slightly arbitrary, you must understand that we are editing English Wikipedia and British and Americans relate mainly to events affecting their own countries. Swedes who comment on the Winter and Continuation Wars tend to exaggerate their role in those wars. Bob’s postings on the role of British 151 Wing markedly exaggerate its importance. Your last comment concerning the story of the Hampden bombers is valid but please avoid expressing yourself in such a rude manner. You should express yourself in a correct manner at all times. BScar23625 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey. I hear what you say, but the role of the British is more important than you suggest. Another area of British involvement worth looking at is attacks on Finnish shipping. Finnish ships participated in German economic and military operations around Norway and in the Baltic. RAF and RAAF planes attacked and damaged/sank several of them. Regards to both you and Posse72. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) ps : sorry if my translation is of poor quality[reply]

As well as german submarine sunk Finnish merchantships. Your statment becomes more and more absurd.--Posse72 (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility on Continuation War

Please refrain from making personal attacks as you did in this edit and assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. If you feel that any of your fellow editors aren't editing in good faith, please make use of the dispute resolution process. Thank you. --Stlemur (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Continuation War. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JohnInDC (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Continuation War. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please redact this latest posting of yours [3]. Further posting in this tone will not be tolerated.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Talk:Battle of Tali-Ihantala, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. Oh, and please, do learn to sign your posts on talk pages properly, using four tilde characters (~~~~). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeated personal attacks. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rr violation

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. --Tbma (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Please see the advice which I left at User talk:Tbma#3rr violation. Since both of you have already been blocked due to this issue, please reflect on whether you want to continue editing Wikipedia. If you agree to stay off Battle of Tali-Ihantala for 30 days you may be able to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its very unfair to compare my edits with those of Tbma/YMB29, first i have been the main contributor to this article, i have seeked the sources/ disscused in discusion all in line to improve this article, this is not the case with Tbma/YMB29 who just last week consider the whole article a hoax, also today i really displined myself not doing any of the previuslly acts of misconduct, so i think your crttisism of me is utterlly unfair.Posse72 (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article ban from Battle of Tali-Ihantala

I am placing both you and User:Tbma under an editing ban from Battle of Tali-Ihantala, per the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. This action is being logged at WP:DIGWUREN#Log of blocks and bans. You may still participate in discussions on the article's talk page. If you and Tbma can come to an agreement on working together to improve the article, the ban can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop. This is not how to appeal an Arbcom sanction. If the official WP:AE process is hard to master, just open a thread at WP:Administrators' noticeboard and ask for your ban to be lifted. When you give your explanation there, It would help if will make an effort to explain your two previous blocks. As an alternative to a formal appeal, you and I could have a discussion and, with a satisfactory result, your ban might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

Just a note: if you would like to open an SPI case, please create the case first, then list it on the mainpage. There is a handy guide in the top section of the page that will help you open a case. If you have questions, please let me know. TN X Man 13:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Posse72: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Posse72, about your request to join the mediation - rather than just jumping right in, I would like you to write an opening statement on the mediation page, outlining your position on the issues involved. You can find the section for you to comment here, and there are instructions there about what to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me here, or on my talk page. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Posse72: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Posse72: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2012 (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) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]