User talk:ULIFOX 3XX

October 2023

Hi ULIFOX 3XX! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Falklands War several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Falklands War, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Use talk page, don't edit war Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see whats the mistake that i made on the Falklands Islands dispute? and on the others? Tell me every article. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, that wasnt for cite or to verify something, that was for timelines, for example in 1832 it wasnt the United Provinces, it was the Argentine Confederation because that says wikipedia in both articles ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you inserted the contentious words 'British occupation' without seeing the rest. About the names, the country's name change and the date the UK flag was raised, are close together. Do you have proper references to say it was the Confederation, not the United Provinces? Wikipedia is not a reference. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute before the British occupation you see that the islands were controlled by the Argentine Confederation (December 1832 – January 1833). If you are going to complain to someone, do it to someone from that article, because at the time of the occupation, Buenos Aires was being controlled by the Federal Pact (Argentine Confederation).

And about the "controversial" word "occupation" you say that I need to cite a reliable source, well:

[1]https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Gi8nvVVXEaIC&dq=spanish+governors+falklands&pg=PA5&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=spanish%20governors%20falklands&f=false

(Page 10)

[2]https://web.archive.org/web/20100401100750/http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html

(The British Reoccupation)

[3]https://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses/702/

And I'm sorry about this, but... Do you really think that coming with a warship to a territory to take control of the Falklands is a reassertion of British sovereignty? The occupation of the Falklands by Argentina in 1982 is not the same? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, WP is not a reference. Whatever is written on another article does not affect this article. Your last reference is a masters thesis so shouldn't be used either, or should have other sources used with it. I cannot see anything on your falklandsinfo reference about a British occupation. Pls note that the term occupation can have or imply different things depending on the context. Here, you are using it to mean an unlawful military occupation, not an occupation by someone who just happens to be living there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So who was in control of the islands in 1832? I don't think it was the United Provinces because they had already ceased to exist in 1831, and who took control of the islands in 1833? British islanders who simply controlled the islands and then said "Oh, this is British."? No, it was an occupation (military? I don't know, they came to the islands with a warship and forcibly removed the Argentine flag), and I never said at any time if it was "illegal." Is this "reaffirmation" something Argentina did in 1982 or not? Why is it not reaffirmation then? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps nobody was 'in control' (or had 'effective possession'), not until the Clio arrived.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was many comand in the islands, which controlled all the islands, the British made a effective possesion in 1846 when they created the Falklands dependencies ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your facts are confused and wrong so however well intentioned you might be you will be adding incorrect detail. The Falklands became a Crown Colony in 1840. The Falkland Island Dependencies were created in 1908, and the Falklands itself wasn't a dependency. You seem to think that change happens only in seperate years whereas many changes can happen in one year, such as in 1831 or 1832. There were many events happening during this time so you should be specific and say when exactly something happened, dd/mm/yy, not just 'in 1832'. Effective possession means just that. Without getting into detail it looks like Vernet couldn't enforce his own regulations on foreign ships that didn't recognise his authority, so how effective was his possession of the islands? That was before what there was of his settlement and authority was destroyed by the Lexington raid. This is far from simple but you seem to be spouting out a version of events that suits just one side, the Argentine side. Most of what comes out of Argentina is a twisted version of the truth. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I hear "the Argentine side is distorted" something that only the British side would say to benefit themselves. The control over the islands and their maritime space becomes fully effective when Buenos Aires sends Vernet in 1829 and creates the "Political and Military Command of the Malvinas (Falklands) Islands, Adjacent to Cape Horn in the Atlantic Sea." Even their maritime spaces, that's why the Falklands expedition takes place, because Vernet did not allow American schooners to be on the islands and the Brazil Squadron sent that expedition. Do you want "dd/mm/yy"? Well, on January 4, 1831 the Federal Pact is created, in which the Province of Buenos Aires was, the same Province that had sent Vernet and that controlled almost the entire country de facto. The last province joined on September 3, 1832. And when did the British operation on the Islands take place? Exactly, December 20, 1832, the entire country was under the control of the Argentine Confederation.

And after the US attack on the Falklands, the government of Buenos Aires sent Juan Esteban Francisco Mestivier to try to rebuild the almost destroyed Puerto Soledad, so even after that attack, the islands were not forgotten or something like that. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Your recent editing history at Occupation of the Falkland Islands shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kahastok talk 22:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on this article as well

Your recent editing history at Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kahastok talk 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for saying the truth, aha. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Falkland Islands

You've been warned in the past about both edit-warring and original research. You need a source that connects Milei's speech with the Falkland Islands instead of your own opinion of it. The article in question in question is also a featured article, it containing original research can result in the demotion of that status so please self-revert your edit. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, didnt i say you that in the speech Milei refers to the Falklands and WAS IN THE FALKLANDS DAY?

What you cant understand? Milei said that he will improve the armed forces but not for invading the islands. Ready. Its too hard to understand? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still need a source reporting on it for it to be included in the article per WP:DUE. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is, if a president says in a video of his own making that (for example) he's going to invade country x, we use journalistic sources and... do we say they're reliable?

In that case, add this yourself and revert the edit: https://www.clarin.com/politica/discurso-completo-javier-milei-2-abril-homenaje-heroes-guerra-malvinas_0_nVAmWjxSOX.html ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we use other sources to establish due weight. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Your recent editing history at Falkland Islands shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 01:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Boca 4–5 Independiente (January 2)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Citation formats are all out of whack. Please see Help:Cite and WP:CITET. Also some signs of AI generation, but not enough for me to decline as such.

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:Boca 4–5 Independiente 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.

guninvalid (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ULIFOX 3XX! 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! guninvalid (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your disruptions please

There is a manual of style and editors have to follow that rules. In the case of football matches, the guide is this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Matches. Team badges are not used on those articles so the paramehers are for associations, not logos.

If you continue with your disruptive edits like this, I'll report you. Please, don't insist with your reversions.

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tobías Ramírez, a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Plate was added. 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) 09:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Facundo Quiroga, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prócer was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Joaquín Freitas

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Joaquín Freitas, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrano vs River

I'm going to undo your recent reversion on the article cited for 2 reasons: 1) I created the CA Belgrano navbox myself and I know what articles include there; your edit summary "Navbox refers to other type of article, this is a historical event" is completely wrong. 2) The photo you uploaded there was marked on Commons as "no permission since" so you attributed it as "own work" but it seems to be a random image taken from the internet. If you can provide evidence of your authorship, of course you're welcome to do it.

So please, let the CA Belgrano navbox just here so the 2011 Argentine Primera División relegation playoffs was one of the matches played by the club. Nevertheless I won't touch the image so I prefer an admin decide what to do with it. Fma12 (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Porque sos de Boca no la tocas che, hablemos con criterio. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, así que sos Argento. ¿Qué tiene que ver que sea de Boca? Creé y he editado artículos de cualquier club (y varios de River incluso). Fma12 (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No no es chiste, yo pongo la imagen porque estéticamente se ve mejor cuando pasas el cursor por el articulo y aparece ya una imagen. Pero como sea, es algo que tengo yo. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Boca 4–5 Independiente

Hello, ULIFOX 3XX. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Boca 4–5 Independiente, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 07:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018–19 Club Atlético River Plate season, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estadio Monumental was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]