HMWD

HMWD, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi HMWD!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk pages

Regarding your comments at User talk:AbelM7, users are generally permitted to remove comments from their talk pages, and it is considered an acknowledgement that they have read the comments. The main exceptions are for notices that they have been blocked, and such. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat a comment here that I put on AbelM7's talk page, in case it gets deleted: I would suggest you seek an external third party's opinion through WP:DRR. See WP:Dispute_resolution. Note that edit warring is likely to get administrators hammering both of you. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

United States and Colombia

The United States and Colombia are not fighting in the Mexican Drug War. Stop adding them there. AbelM7 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In the sections for the Reform War and the 2nd Franco-Mexican war i see United States and Peru mention even though they didn't fought directly, only supported Mexico, in that sense they must be removed aswell. Now, regarding the main issue here: The border war, your main argument for the victory of the United States: that they rendered Villa's army useless so it stopped being a treath is incorrect. The raids from Villa and his rebels continued past the border war (until February 1920) Your other argument, that the battle of Carrizal don't counts is also incorrect: after that defeat they were ordered to withdraw, and didn't steeped far into Mexican territory ever again. Your other argument, that it was only Pershing's thoughts don't counts either since he was the general in charge of the campaign and one of the highest ranked US generals of all time, yet he has no hard time admiting it was a defeat, he reaches the conclusion since, as anybody can tell his campaign didn't accomplished any of goalls set, it couldn't even render Villa forces useless, since the raids continued well after the end of the border war. HMWD (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

America sent troops to Mexico after the civil war to help Mexico defeat France. I never said the Battle of Carrizal didn't count. You're the one acting like the Battle of Ambos Nogales and the Battle of Ciudad Juarez never happened. The Border War did not end after the Battle of Carrizal. Mexico has never defeated USA in a war. None of those sources says the USA lost the Border War. America even had the most victories in the Border War including occupying Veracruz. If anything, this a "American military victory, main objective not accomplished" (which was to capture or kill Pancho Villa). Pershing said he was outwitted not that it was a failure. The Mexican troops at Ambos Nogales were not a "irregular stray". Why would Germans help an "irregular stray"? Don't lie by saying eveverthing I say has no backup whatsoever. I also added very reliable sources that back me up since you didn't notice. One of them says "By this point it was not really necessary for Pershing to send troops any further into Mexico. Villa's forces were badly depleted by casualties and desertion, and those who remained were largely scattered. Although the Villistas were still on the loose, they were not much of a menace". Pancho Villa's troops were no an effective fighting force and Pancho Villa was no longer a threat to America. The raids by Pancho Villa didn't continue though there was one raid in Ruby, Arizona. One of the articles says "There is no evidence that Villa's men killed any Americans after the battle for Juarez, though there was a raid on the town of Ruby, Arizona, in February 1920, that may have been the work of Villistas." It isn't even known for sure if there were by Villistas. Pancho Villa himself wasn't involved. His last raid/battle was actually in Durango, Mexico in 1919. AbelM7 (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Border War

The Border War was not a Mexican victory. Mexico has never defeated America in a war. America won. USA defeated the Mexicans and Germans involved in the war, occupied Veracruz and made Pancho Villa's troops an uneffective fighting force. Mexico was having its Revolution during the same time period so they could not effectively engage in a war and win. Stop this pointless edit war. AbelM7 (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I already adressed every point above, Villa's forces weren't rendered unnefective, they kept attacking USA well after the end of the boreder war, The victory on Ambos Nogales was against irregular stray Mexican troops, USA didn't defeated the Mexican forces, not even in a notable number, The US army failed to meet it's goals despite all it's efforts, and evemn the general in charge declared the campaign a failure, more importantly, i have very reliable sources to back me up that agree that USA lost, while you have none. Everything that you say has no backup whatsoever. HMWD (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said the Battle of Carrizal didn't count. You're the one acting like the Battle of Ambos Nogales and the Battle of Ciudad Juarez never happened. The Border War did not end after the Battle of Carrizal. Mexico has never defeated USA in a war. None of those sources says the USA lost the Border War. America even had the most victories in the Border War including occupying Veracruz. If anything, this a "American military victory, main objective not accomplished" (which was to capture or kill Pancho Villa). Pershing said he was outwitted not that it was a failure. The Mexican troops at Ambos Nogales were not a "irregular stray". Why would Germans help an "irregular stray"? Don't lie by saying eveverthing I say has no backup whatsoever. I also added very reliable sources that back me up since you didn't notice. One of them says "By this point it was not really necessary for Pershing to send troops any further into Mexico. Villa's forces were badly depleted by casualties and desertion, and those who remained were largely scattered. Although the Villistas were still on the loose, they were not much of a menace". Pancho Villa's troops were no an effective fighting force and Pancho Villa was no longer a threat to America. The raids by Pancho Villa didn't continue though there was one raid in Ruby, Arizona. One of the articles says "There is no evidence that Villa's men killed any Americans after the battle for Juarez, though there was a raid on the town of Ruby, Arizona, in February 1920, that may have been the work of Villistas." It isn't even known for sure if there were by Villistas. Pancho Villa himself wasn't involved. His last raid/battle was actually in Durango, Mexico in 1919. AbelM7 (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

How can it an "American military victory" when as yourslef have said the "main objetives failed"? that's a complete contradiction and yourself are acknowledging that the objetives failed, textually citing Pershing, he does say that: -"when the true history is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turned back at the first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs."- That in no way is a victory. Im not ignoring the Battle of Ambos Nogales nor the Battle of Ciudad Juarez, what i am saying is that after the defeat on The battle of Carrizal they were ordered to withdarw, and that's how it was, after it they didn't ventured far into mexican territory ever again. The "most military victories argument" no war on wiki is decided by who got more vicotries is pointless, it's out of question when one of the sides have openly admitted failure. Even worse because both, The occupation of Veracruz and the battle of Ambos Nogales were fought on it's majority against civilians, and in neither they advanced past the initial location, and after the incidents have ended in the later United States had to issue an apology (which, in the article of List of wars involving the United States is enough to consider it a victory against Paraguay). The other battle of the border war, the battle of Parral was a draw, but you (surprisingly) changed the outcome disregarding the existing sources (again) adding a vague and false summary [1] Finally, the Villa treath didn't ended after the border war, both sides of the border still suffered of raids after it, that's out of question, when again, the United states admitted it's failure. HMWD (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

When did I said "main objectives failed"? I said "If anything, this a "American military victory, main objective not accomplished" (which was to capture or kill Pancho Villa)." Meaning if you were going to go with another option, this would be it. It's not a contradiction. Like the First Fiji Expedition where the United States won the war but Cakobau's debt wasn't paid. The Battle of Parral was an American victory. You're the one who falsely changed it. [2] That's Pershing own personal thoughts, not the whole United States. Pershing never said failure or defeat. Here's a quote from a source I added: "Despite its failure to capture Pancho Villa, the Mexican Punitive Expedition was deemed a success. Secretary of War Baker praised the efforts of Pershing and his men saying "its objective, of course was the capture of Villa, if that could be accomplished, but its real purpose was a display of the power of the United States into a country disturbed beyond control of the constituted authorities of the Republic of Mexico as a means of controlling lawless aggregations of bandits and preventing attacks by them across the international frontier. This purpose is fully and finally accomplished."" It also says "By this point it was not really necessary for Pershing to send troops any further into Mexico. Villa's forces were badly depleted by casualties and desertion, and those who remained were largely scattered. Although the Villistas were still on the loose, they were not much of a menace." Pancho Villa became ineffective and longer a threat to America after the Border War. Villa's final battle was Ciudad Juarez in 1919 and last siege in Durango in 1919. He retired in June 1920 on his own and negotiated a peace settlement with Mexican government. He was assassinated in 1923. You're acting like the Border War ended with the Battle of Carrizal. The Border War continued after 1917. Here's a quote from the article: "Though the operation was successful in finding and engaging the Villista rebels, the revolutionary himself escaped and the American army returned to the United States in January 1917. Conflict at the border continued however and the United States launched several more smaller operations into Mexican territory until 1919 when violence decreased significantly after the Battle of Ambos Nogales." AbelM7 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And where is the link to that quote you like to mention so much?, again, most victories doesn't matter on any war, specially when both, Ambos nogales and veracruz were fought against civilians mostly, is not true that the violence decreased after ambos nogales, and it wasn't the last major battle. HMWD (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

They're in the results section of the Border War infobox, and stop edit warring. AbelM7 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This will take place on your talk page now. HMWD (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Border War (1910–19). 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.  Favonian (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HMWD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was careful to not violate the 3 revert rule, that's why i stopped edit warring last night (unlike AbelM7, who broke the 3 revert rule on three articles simultaneously last night (see the edit History of this three articles: [3], [4], [5], and has been blocked from edit warring less than one week ago [6], he is also involded with other users on a similar kind of edit wars [7],[8] (keeps removing sourced information and changing outcomes just because), i already explained to him in both, my talk page and the edit summaries of these pages why he can't remove sourced information and why his arguments are wrong [9] & [10] but he insists. He is an stubborn edit warrior that does not respect sources. HMWD (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for violating WP:3RR; you are blocked for edit warring, and carefully not exceeding 3RR does not mean you are not edit warring, it means you are attempting to carefully edit war. Regarding the rest, WP:NOTTHEM applies. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. AbelM7 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board

We have agreed that the Border War was a American/Carrancista victory so we can get that out the way. Now the issues are about the amount of results the Border War page has. I have a compromise that I think we would both be happy with.

1. No need to add Mexican in front of Carrancista. It is already known that the Carrancistas are Mexicans. It would be like saying the American Civil War was a American Union victory and American Confederacy defeat since they are both American groups fighting in an internal civil war. It is simply a Union victory and Confederacy defeat.
2. "Mexican Carrancista/American Victory over the Villistas". This is too long for a outcome. Imagine putting "Allied Victory over the Axis Powers" on the World War II article and on every country that participated "list of wars" articles. War pages just have "(Country or group) victory" and list of wars pages usually just have "victory" or "defeat" with a group added to the front if it was internal war or similar. For example, the Reform War was an internal war in Mexico between the Liberals and Conservatives which the Liberals won so it is a "Liberal victory". The Border War is an international war fought between the United States against Mexico and Germany while the Mexican Revolution is an internal civil war fought between various Mexican groups. "American/Carrancista victory" is quick and to the point.
3. The Battle of Parral was an American victory. It was already said that before you changed it. Mexican troops suffer more causalities.
4. "Conflict at the border continued however and the United States launched several more smaller operations into Mexican territory until 1919 when violence decreased significantly after the Battle of Ambos Nogales." I don't why you singled this sentence out but this sentence has been there before you started editing on the page and should remain there. You cannot deny that this is not true. Just look at Border War (1910–19)#1918 and Border War (1910–19)#1919 and you'll see that the Battle of Ambos Nogales on August 27, 1918 was the last battle of 1918 and there wouldn't be another battle until the Battle of Ciudad Juarez on June 16, 1919. This is the reason why that sentence was written.
5. It wasn't just the Villistas and Carrancistas fighting, other groups fought too. Include all the participants in the Mexican side with a small note at the bottom saying "The Mexican groups listed here did not necessarily cooperate with each other, with some engaged in fighting with each other. See Mexican Revolution." I know that the Americans and Carrancistas didn't work together for most of the war but they did worked together in the final battle that ended the Border War so we should put them in the same side with a small note at the bottom saying "The American and Carrancista forces would join together to defeat the Villistas in the final battle ending the Border War."
6. Lets trim the results section since it is too much especially for a minor war like this one. Not even the Seven Years' War, World War I or World War II have as much results in their sections. "General John J. Pershing acknowledges the failure of the American army to meet the objetives of their campaign" A person's own personal thoughts about the war does not go in the results section. The results section are for major events that happened because of the war. "Pancho Villa obtains pardon from the Mexican government" This is will fit better in the Mexican Revolution article. Since you want a Mexico "highlight" (there are no "highlights", just results; For example, France defeated Russia in the Battle of Smolensk in the first major battle of the French Invasion of Russia yet this is not included in the results section, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II yet these are not included in the results section), I will keep "American military is ordered to withdraw from Mexican territory after the defeat in the Battle of Carrizal" just for you. I'm also going to combine the bullet points of the last two battles of Border War to help trim it down. Results:

• Occupation of Veracruz
• American military is ordered to withdraw from Mexican territory after the defeat in the Battle of Carrizal
• Pancho Villa's troops no longer an effective fighting force
• Conflict ends in 1919 after the American victory and American/Carrancista victory in the Battle of Ambos Nogales and Battle of Ciudad Juárez, respectively

I think this is fair and will end this dispute. AbelM7 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Example infobox

Border War
Part of the Mexican Revolution
Date 1910–1919 Location Mexican-American border states Result American/Carrancista victory Occupation of Veracruz American military is ordered to withdraw from Mexican territory after the defeat in the Battle of Carrizal Pancho Villa's troops no longer an effective fighting force Conflict ends in 1919 after the American victory and American/Carrancista victory in the Battle of Ambos Nogales and Battle of Ciudad Juárez, respectively
Belligerents
Mexican revolutionaries: Villistas Constitutionalistas Carrancistas Maderistas Seditionistas German Empire The Mexican groups listed here did not necessarily cooperate with each other, with some engaged in fighting with each other. See Mexican Revolution.	United States Carrancistas The American and Carrancista forces would join together to defeat the Villistas in the final battle ending the Border War.
Commanders and leaders
Pancho Villa Alvaro Obregon Venustiano Carranza Francisco Madero	Herbert J. Slocum John J. Pershing Frank Tompkins Frederick J. Herman

Response

You don't know about many things you are talking about, starting with the fact that the constitutionalistas and the carrancistas are one and the same just with different names, yet you insist on adding both separatedly and not only that, but you are right now putting the carrancists in one side and the constitutionalists on other when they are the same, similar thing with the seditionistas and the maderistas, who weren't on the side of Villa yet you group them together. To put the United States and the Carrancistas on the same side is unapropiate, because they only fought together in one battle, on the war as a whole they were enemies, and neither of those was on the side of Villa, this is why the infobox should be splitted on 3 sides. I can't be more clear than this.

Next, the "Conflict ends in 1919 after the American victory and American/Carrancista victory in the Battle of Ambos Nogales and Battle of Ciudad Juárez, respectively" is not accurate, because these fights didn't happened simultaneously, the conflict officially ended after the battle of ciudad juarez, wich took place after ambos nogales, battle that according to your most recent and somewhat decent source was a truce [11].

The heading "American/Carrancista" victory is not accurate either, the border war was part of the Mexican revolution, it had barelay anything to do with United States history and the headin you propose suggests the Mexico was a secondary player. HMWD (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h 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.  Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

O well looks like they did not see the whole story here at all. Dont worry HMWD small block. I will keep an eye out for any more bad edits. How come the other editor seems to believes you agreed on there edits? Did you agree to content but the sources are just to bad or is it just all messed up? -- Moxy (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I only agreed on things being shown as they are shown on this diff: [12], this is how I and AbelM7 agreed and how this was during 4 days until AbelM7 broke it, we haven't discussed or agreed on any improvements since then, anything else he says that i agreed upon is not true. HMWD (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We are going to have to look at this much closer... as there is now an IP doing the same edits that I removed here. Its to bad our adims are not taking the time to look at the problem at hand even when asked to look at the problem again - no luck as of yet. Dont worry I will keep an eye on the IPs etc. I was worried that because of your report both of you would be blocked - but never though only you would be. Odd very odd. -- Moxy (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to wait and see what administrators think of my appeal, thanks for your support nonethless. HMWD (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

HMWD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The article for edit warring on wiki states that to revert and correct other users uncivil behavoir (on this case AbelM7, who is removing sourced claims and breaking an agreement we have made) is not edit warring, and I only revert those articles two times max per day, i mean, i even opened a case in the pertinent noticeboard explaining all the problematique and no administrator have participed on it [13], i find incredible that AbelM7 created a case just one day after i created mine and he got an answer and i got ignored despite that mine is only 4 cases above and is way more detailed, even other user is telling to the admin that blocked me that he got it wrong and that AbelM7 is the one at fault [14] & [15], what's going on here? HMWD (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I can see there is a wider issue here. I am going to protect the article instead. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the right course of action was taken here - no blocks - just locking up the page to force a talk. So lets do that on the article talk page. I will join and look for the sources. -- Moxy (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I already explained to him above why the infobox can't be as he suggests [16], we'll have to wait to see what he responds now. HMWD (talk) 21:00, 2 May 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) 03:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)