User talk:AbelM7

August 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to List of wars involving the United States has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of wars involving the United States was changed by AbelM7 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950605 on 2013-08-14T01:14:07+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

AbelM7, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi AbelM7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AbelM7. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 03:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:15, Sunday, September 22, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Hello friend

Sorry i made a typo over at the Canadian talk page - I do agree singular is fine. On a side note you may want to read over Talk:Germans/Archive 6 as there was a similar problem there. -- Moxy (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's okay. Mistakes happen. And thanks, will do! AbelM7 (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Americas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pan-American. 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) 09:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm JesseRafe. Your recent edit to the page North Asia appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. JesseRafe (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@JesseRafe I didn't add anything. I reverted. AbelM7 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a template, but in essence willfully intending to remove valid information is THE SAME as willfully intending to add false information, maybe you didn't read what you removed as it did not express the other user's opinion, but was rather an objective reporting of how the UN classifies the region. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them, but it was accurate information. I only came across this series of edits of yours because you had lazily ignored an intermediate edit (made by me) in your zeal to undo the the Europe/Asia continent thing.JesseRafe (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@JesseRafe The United Nations groups its geoscheme out of convenience. Since most of North Asia is part of Russia, they include it in Eastern Europe. As for the other edit, don't worry I went in and added your edit as well. (I mentioned it in the edit summary.) I'm sorry for not seeing your edit. AbelM7 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Europe, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please do not keep edit-warring restoring Ancient Rome as the bithplace of Western civilisation during your large edits. This is not included in the citation. You have been edit-warring about this point for a long time. Next time you will be reported at WP:3RRN for long-term edit-warring. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K. I didn't add Ancient Rome, it was already there. I reverted the page but not for the Ancient Rome addition. Next time I'll make sure Ancient Rome is not included. AbelM7 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you AbelM7 for the clarification. Message struck. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K. You're welcome. Glad I could clarified. AbelM7 (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Wars

It's simple, these incidents are more relvant because they involve foreign intervention and both are attemps at annexing Mexico's territory, that's a big deal, if the dirty war, that was not even a real scale confrontation at any point, and Las Cuevas War, which wasn't even fought by the Mexican government but was some irregular militia (and was over some cattle) are included, there is no rational to let these two serious incidents out, they meet the criteria to be in a "list of wars" better than the other ones already in the page do. HMWD (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No they don't. One is one man's expedition and another is a massacre. Nobody was annexing land. AbelM7 (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Both incidents mentioned involved hundreds of men fighting, you have no real justification on removing them, why do you always edit on so biased perspective? you are always fighting with other wikipedians because the way you edit and are always getting warnings, at this point you must be well aware that you can't act this way on a site like wikipedia. You can't remove things just because you don't like them. HMWD (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do because a massacre and an expedition doesn't belong. I'm not biased. You're the one who's biased and can't let things go. As for the other Wikipedians, inevitability there's going to be differences but when a conflict happens, we resolve it and move on. And trust me when say I don't remove things because "I don't like them" otherwise I would be doing nothing be removing stuff on Wikipedia. (I don't like mustard but hey, there's the page.) AbelM7 (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Already explained you very well why the incidents are more worthy than various battles already included in the article and you keep ignoring that, "And trust me when say I don't remove things because I don't like them" i don't trust you because half of wikipedia's community is accussing you of doing exactly that and being biased in your edits al the time. HMWD (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"half of wikipedia's community" No they're not, that's a lie and an exaggeration and you know it. I already gave you the example if I would to just remove things just because "I don't like them" then there would be no mustard page because I don't like mustard. And I've already explained to you that they don't not belong because they are not wars. Expedition and massacre doesn't equal a war. You might as well include the Armenian Genocide in Turkey's page or the recent Iguala massacre that happened in Mexico but shouldn't because they're not wars. They can be included in the history but not in the list of wars. AbelM7 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't compare a genocide to a massacre that happened after a extended confrontation and aggresion from both sides because some filibusters wanted to annex Mexican states. Because they actually wanted to:"He (William Walker) began recruiting from amongst American supporters of slavery and the Manifest Destiny Doctrine, mostly inhabitants of Kentucky and Tennessee. His intentions then changed from forming a buffer colony to establishing an independent Republic of Sonora, which might eventually take its place as a part of the American Union (as had been the case previously with the Republic of Texas). He funded his project by "selling scrips which were redeemable in lands of Sonora."[2]" & "At the time the Crabb Expedition was regarded by many Mexicans and Americans as being an outfit of filibusters, organized to conquer Mexican territory, but it was sanctioned by the rebel government in Mexico, which would eventually win the Reform War in 1861. Cardwell himself wrote that "Mr. Crabb left here about January last, ostensibly for the purpose of mining in the Gadsden purchase, and settling there; but really intending to conquer Sonora, and in process of time add it to the slave states."[4][5]" HMWD (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It can be compare. The massacre happened because "Now that he no longer needed the American colonists, Pesqueira was criticised by his followers for accepting to use Americans in the war. Because of this, the rebels decided to destroy the expedition." It wasn't due to aggression by Henry A. Crabb. It even says "Crabb sent the prefect of Altar a message saying that he had come in peace but the message was either ignored or failed to arrive in time." It doesn't say it was to annex Mexican states to the United States. It says William Walker wanted to establish an independent Republic of Sonora (his own independent country). It also says it might eventually take its place as a part of the American Union which is pure speculation and as we know, didn't happen. You forgot to mention that Ygnacio Pesqueira is the one who invited Henry A. Crabb to colonize the northern frontier region in the state of Sonora. It also says Crabb's journey was of a private nature and did not involve the American government or the military. Whether Crabb's intentions was to eventually conquer Sonora and in process of time somehow convince the United States and congress to accept Sonora to the union as a slave state, he was brought on the basis that the colonists would help Pesqueira fight in the civil war and against the Apache, not annex Mexican states to the United States. AbelM7 (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Pleae don't make any kind of assumptions and let's stick to what sources say, you are just trying to find loose knots where there isn't, we could make the same kind of assumptions for every conflict in the article. The important thing are the military confrontations and what we know are the motivations behind them, stop edit warring, you might get blocked (again) if you persist. HMWD (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please just stop edit warring and let it go or you will get block again if you continue. None of the sources says it was to annex Mexican states to the United States. They say William Walker wanted to establish an independent Republic of Sonora and that Ygnacio Pesqueira is the one who invited Henry A. Crabb to colonize the northern frontier region. I'm not finding "loose knots". You're the one making assumptions that the United States was going to annex Sonora. They were an expedition and a massacre, not wars. AbelM7 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

By definition, according to the wikipedia policy for edit warring you are the one who started the edit war. Just like you've started them in many articles before. It's not up to you to give your opinion or evaluate the sources in USA and Mexico affairs according to what you consider legit or not. We must adhere to the sources. I will ask you a question, why do you have a problem with the entries that i want to add but you are ok with entries such as Las Cuevas, The Dirty War, Garza Revolution etc.? these entries suffer of all the things you accuse my entries to have but in a more notable manner, why are you ok with them? HMWD (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of wars involving Mexico

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. 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.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:AbelM7 reported by User:HMWD (Result: Blocks). EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

New World

If you want to include Oceania or Australasia in "New World" then please provide appropriate sources. Thank you. --Whattheheyhey (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)