User talk:LaHire07

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tercio, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Turnhout, Battle of Ravenna and Battle of Montjuïc. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SN54129 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charge (warfare). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SN54129 17:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Battle of Poitiers. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! SN54129 17:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Serial Number 54129

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Battle of Poitiers. SN54129 17:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John of Gaunt's chevauchée of 1373 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, John of Gaunt's chevauchée of 1373, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was writing the article when I uploaded it by mistake, trying to save it. Now it's ready. LaHire07 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into John of Gaunt's chevauchée of 1373. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LaHire07,

If you disagree with moving an article to Draft space, please move it back. Right now, we have two different versions of this article with two separate edit histories. This makes attribution almost impossible. Please do not cut and paste an article in the future, keep all versions of an article together. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Hi, what happened is that I created the article "John of Gaunt's chevauchée od 1373" but I uploaded it by mistake, trying to save the changes. Which is why an administrator put it in the draft space, while I was still working on it. We ended up with two articles, one, unfinished, that was in the draft space and the other that was not and that was finished. Which is why I proposed to delete the article that was in the draft space unfinished (that I had submitted not realising the changes had not been saved and that the finished article was actually not in the draft space). LaHire07 (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Now I'm just trying to delete the draft article because the finished article I created is already on Wikipedia LaHire07 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, LaHire07

Thank you for creating John of Gaunt's chevauchée of 1373.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Great article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

There are a lot of irritating people on Wikipedia and putting up with them is just part of the course. However, hypocrisy annoys me; given the abuse hurled at me (eg calling me a liar ten times in four paragraphs), you're not in a position to object to any language I use. Plus, let's drop the pretence that you're neutral and your only objectives are truth and beauty; you have a very specific viewpoint (as is obvious from your contributions), clearly dislike being disagreed with and are given to sweeping statements about those who don't align with that viewpoint.

Not a discussion (so if you reply I won't read it), just a request. Do it or don't do it, up to you.Robinvp11 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11 Your irritation makes you blind about the obvious mistakes you're making, i.e misquoting an author while knowing it's a misquote and using primary estimates when secondary estimates made by a professional battlefield archeologist are available. LaHire07 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rocking

Just a token of appreciation for every edit you made to promote French (especially royal French) history and combat the rampant bias surrounding it that is so prevalent on English wikipedia. Looking forward to seeing other edits from you.

I also did some minor editing on an article on the Hundred Years War (while not logged) to remove some of the most egregious bias. I will be glad if you supplement it with your own contributions.

Good luck and Montjoie Saint Denis. Тимофей Васильченков (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment, thanks a lot! Indeed, not only bias is rampant but bad faith is too... False numbers, modified or truncated quotes... I've seen a lot of things. I guess that, as a Russian, you'll also have to fight against some unfortunate bias (and I say that without any irony).

Good luck too. LaHire07 (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LaHire07 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know LaHire07 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Battle of Sidi Brahim and Battle of Macta) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unfortunate to give reason to him. Not only did I remove the sources when I wasn't able to give the precise page of the citation, but now that I am and that I put a picture of the source on the talk page, a verification is needed? When the source is literally accessible to everyone in the talk page and when I showed it to the other editor? Who then keeps reverting the edit for no reason at all? I'm just questioning the method there... LaHire07 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

I see you have asked for a verification concerning a reference(Garnier, Jacques (2004). Dictionnaire Perrin des guerres et des batailles de l'histoire de France. Perrin. p. 37. ISBN 9782262008291.). You should ask for that particular page of the reference at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request?? Assuming someone else has access to it, you could check the reference yourself. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just now saw your post on Talk:Battle of Macta. Sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) LaHire07 (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect categories

I just saw your addition of Category:French war artists at a number of articles on my watchlist, and the first three I checked were incorrect (or at the very least not supported by the article, which is a requirement for categories), so I'll revert them all. Please only readd correct and supported ones. Fram (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram

Absolutely every artist for which I added this category were "either commissioned by a government or publication, or self-motivated, to document first-hand experience of war in any form of illustrative or depictive recor". I even have a list of some of their milltary works for all of them.

Not to say that all of them did exclusively that, but that's not a requirement. I have checked the category "War artists by nationality/British war artists" and it's clearly the case for most of them. LaHire07 (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, at least one of them was Belgian, not French. But more importantly, you should never have categories for things not included in the article. The category reflects the article (and even then only for defining characteristics, not for something of minor importance only). For example, Hortense Haudebourt-Lescot has no information on being a war artist, and even the much longer French article has nothing on it, and no examples of war paintings given either. Many other ones similarly have no indication of why they belong in that category: Henri Delaborde (painter), Dominique Papety, Claude-Guy Hallé, Théodore Caruelle d'Aligny, .... Either it is incorrect or not important for them. Fram (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which one was Belgian. If it's true, then my apologies.

Hortense Haudebourt-Lescot painted :

-Capture of Thionville, 23 June 1558, commissioned for the military gallery of Versailles on 20 April 1837

-Pope Eugene III receives the ambassadors of the king of Jerusalem, 1145, commissioned for the crusades room of Versailles on 6 July 1838

-Claude, comte de Choiseul, Marshal of France, commissioned for the military gallery of Versailles on 23 May 1835

-Guy-Michel de Durfort, duc de Lorges, Marshal of France, commissioned for the military gallery of Versailles on 15 April 1835

Henri Delaborde painted:

-The Knights of St. John of Jerusalem restoring religion in Armenia, 1347, commissioned for the crusades room of Versailles on 29 June 1842

-Capture of Damietta, 1219, commissioned for the crusades room of Versailles on 6 July 1838

-Capture of Damietta, 1219 (another one), commissioned for the crusades room of Versailles on 6 July 1838

Dominique Papety painted:

-Guillaume de Clermont defends Acre, 1291, commissioned for the crusades room of Versailles on 29 June 1842

-Joan of Arc is presented to Charles VII, February 1429, commissioned for the military gallery of Versailles on 22 June 1837

-Jean Koletti (Ioánnis Koléttis), Greek military leader, commissioned for the military gallery of Versailles on 26 November 1847

Claude-Guy Hallé painted:

-Reparation by the doge of Genoa to Louis XIV, 15 May 1685, commissioned by the king's household on 10 May 1710

Théodore Caruelle d'Aligny painted:

-Capture of Jargeau, 15 June 1429, commissioned for the military gallery of Versailles on 3 June 1838

Information available on http://collections.chateauversailles.fr/

These lists are not exhaustive.

It's also not because rather small wikipedia articles on artists don't feature their war paintings that they don't exist.

I can do the exact same for the other nationalities of this category. For instance, for the British artists, war painting doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic in the wikipedia articles of Mary Adshead, Cecil Aldin, Griselda Allan, Rosemary Allan, Kathleen Allen, Leonard Appelbee or Clare Atwood (that's only for the ones whom firstname begins by A). These people painted a few war time work factories at best.

On the other hand, I only selected French artists whom I know depicted military events, and I have a list for all of them. LaHire07 (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You stated above that these were painters who "document first-hand experience of war in any form of illustrative or depictive record". Let me emphasise: "first-hand experience". That's artist who visit battlefields (or things like London during the blitz, or military hospitals during wars) and paint these images, these experiences. It(s not about someone painting a portrait of a general, or someone painting scenes from hundreds of years before. Fram (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram

You're right, I missed the "first-hand experience" part.

But then, people who painted on battles they did not experience first hand shouldn't be considered as war artists? I'm not sure that Denis Brighton witnessed Nelson's death, that Robert Ker Portner witnessed the battle of Lincoln 700 years before or that Charles Edwin Fripp was at Isandlwana. Yet they should be considered war artists shouldn't they?

LaHire07 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The questions isn't whether they also painted war scenes from history (which makes them history painters), but whether they match the definition given. I checked Robert Ker Porter, and it states "While in Sweden, Porter had got to know General Sir John Moore, whom he accompanied to Spain. He was with the military expedition throughout, was present at the Battle of Coruña and the death of the general, and made many sketches of the campaign. " Similarly, Charles Edwin Fripp was at the battles and wars he depicted, as described in his article. Fram (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram

I won't bother you more, but would you consider Elizabeth Thompson, Denis Dighton, John Henry Frederick Bacon and Robert Gibb to be "war artists"? LaHire07 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Dighton visited the Waterloo battlefield five days after the victory and executed nine paintings of the battle." and other bits and pieces seem to indicate that he was a war artist. John Henry Frederick Bacon doesn't seem to be in the war artist cat, and the article doesn't really indicate him as such I think? I see nothing remotely war oriented in Elizabeth Thompson (painter), and she isn't in a war artist cat. Why do you ask? Fram (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this "Elizabeth Thompson". She is in the war artist category, as well as Robert Gibb. Bacon is not in the war artist cat but he is in the war artist article. LaHire07 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Rumersheim (February 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Rumersheim and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LaHire07! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit on battle of Ramillies

We don't need to site all the extreme numbers. Otherwise,many books claimed the number of French casualties could reach to 20,000. Waylon1104 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fontenoy

I saw your "fail verification" tag on Everson. I did a cursory search(a whopping three pages!) and found, "The British suffered over 4,000 casualties and their Hanoverian allies nearly 1,800." Did you find the same amount?--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expected that getting access to the whole article rather than just the preview would give the expected information but no. There's indeed nothing other than "The British suffered over 4,000 casualties and their Hanoverian allies nearly 1,800." (Dutch and Austrian casualties are not given). And nothing about "7,560 casualties". LaHire07 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Battle of Sig. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but please, do not pretend that a source is modern when it is actually quoting an old one. LaHire07 (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The used source is modern (it can use and quote whatever it wants). Even if a source from 1884 was used, it would still supersede the ancient ones that you used. The word "pretend" is there to prove that you continue to assume bad faith. M.Bitton (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remind you that one day you wrote this about me: "I have yet to see a single edit of yours that doesn't push a nationalist agenda"? You did more than not assuming good faith here. Please, keep your lessons for yourself. LaHire07 (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remind you that was in response to your repeated personal attacks? M.Bitton (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Sig. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edit war, I was adding another source and was about to rewrite the article accordingly LaHire07 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is. Time for you to take it to the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a secondary source is used by a tertiary source does not give it more credit than it should have. Please be aware that I will rewrite the article using the detailed account of distinguished historian Camille Rousset whose work was obviously used by a lot of modern scholars. LaHire07 (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Unless Camille Rousset's fairy tales have been used by a modern source, then there is no way that would be acceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that you are clearly biased on the subject (if we ever needed some proof), as you are calling Rousset's work "a fairy tale" without even having read it. LaHire07 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the old French sources, the extremely questionable language that they used and their fairy tales. Nonetheless, thank you for confirming that you have no intention of assuming good faith. M.Bitton (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I am rereading the discussion on the battle of Mansurah (I will have to modify the article one day) and the amount of insults and personal attacks from your part was staggering. "I have zero interest in reading your usual nationalist nonsense" And you are telling me to assume good faith when it comes to your catastrophic edits? And blaming me because I don't? Have some shame really, have some shame. Moreover nobody cares what your personal opinion about French sources is. Reread wikipedia guidelines. LaHire07 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holding grudges about some old discussion in which you didn't shine doesn't look good. M.Bitton (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You just illustrated what a reverse accusation is. And it's not pretty. I am not holding grudges, I am reminding you that you cannot ask people for assuming good faith, and blame them when they don't, when you are yourself not assuming bad faith, to say the least, and insulting people. You want to scare people with your knowledge of rules which you are yourself not applying. Moreover, if you think that I did not shine in that discussion, I wonder how I should describe your contribution which was just about insulting me and saying you wouldn't read my comments. Let me tell you, this is a particularly toxic behaviour, and you are not an editor we can collaborate with. Finally, the fact that you call any source that describes a French victory in this particular battle "a fairy tale" clearly shows that you have picked a side and you're not being honest intellectually. LaHire07 (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC

Nope, you just proved that you have a habit of assuming bad faith (which is what you did in that old discussion when you started questioning people's integrity by assuming "dishonesty"). Slowly, a pattern is emerging. M.Bitton (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean when I called your comment "intellectually dishonest" after you told me "I ignored your first comment", "I have yet to see a single edit of yours that doesn't push a nationalist agenda", "If you believe your cherry picked nonsense that doesn't stand up to basic common sense deserve more than a laugh" and "your nationalist wet dream". And you're telling me I was the one assuming bad faith? That I "started"? You should have been warned if not banned for your pathetically toxic behaviour against my rational arguments and myself, and you're just showing the pure hypocrisy that characterizes you so well. LaHire07 (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the most important part that proves that I responded to your aspersions? I ignored your first comment as I usually have no time for those who cast aspersions, but the "unlucky" crap will get you the answer that you deserve. You obviously have a habit of casting aspersions and assuming bad faith; and now, we can safely add "holding grudges" to the list. M.Bitton (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only aspersions I casted were telling you that you were wrong when you said that modern sources were all unanimous, and showing how you pretended that Périni was describing a French defeat by quoting "the losses of the battles of Mansurah" whereas he was talking about the casualties and you cut the first part of the quote. This is absolutely toxic editing and a deceptive use of twisted quotes. Quite shameful. Anyway, even if you felt that these were "aspersions", whereas these were valid critics, there is no way it justifies your despicable and deplorable behaviour. LaHire07 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That old discussion is still there if anyone is interested, so no need for to repeat what was said and in what context. Your above comment speaks for itself (bad faith assumption aside, I'll put the rest down to unresolved anger). Feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the worst part was that you deleted the part of the article I had written that showed how the battle was a French victory, and then you came at me to tell me "Only five Templar Knights escaped alive is what is stated in the battle's description, yet for some strange reason someone decided to describe it as a French victory". This is so toxic. I have never seen a more toxic editor than you. LaHire07 (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Rumersheim

Hello, LaHire07. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Rumersheim, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Siege of Marchiennes

Hello, LaHire07. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Siege of Marchiennes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Battle of Rumersheim

Hello, LaHire07. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Battle of Rumersheim".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Siege of Marchiennes

Hello, LaHire07. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Siege of Marchiennes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]