User talk:Posse72

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)