→ISIL talk page: new section |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
I removed your text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=627215652 diff], as it does not make any sense. Perhaps it was garbled by a technical gremlin. Please feel welcome to make further constructive contributions. --[[User:Hro%C3%B0ulf|Hroðulf]] (or Hrothulf) ([[User talk:Hro%C3%B0ulf|Talk]]) 10:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
I removed your text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=627215652 diff], as it does not make any sense. Perhaps it was garbled by a technical gremlin. Please feel welcome to make further constructive contributions. --[[User:Hro%C3%B0ulf|Hroðulf]] (or Hrothulf) ([[User talk:Hro%C3%B0ulf|Talk]]) 10:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Syrian Civil War == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
| As a result of a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]], broad [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|editing restrictions]] apply to all pages broadly related to the [[Syrian Civil War]], such as [[:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] which you have recently edited. These sanctions are described at [[Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions]] and a brief summary is included below: |
|||
*Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], satisfy any [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standard of behavior]], or follow any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. |
|||
*If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban. |
|||
*A [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|one revert per twenty-four hours restriction]] applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed [[Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions#1RR|here]]. |
|||
*Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at [[Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions]] before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War. |
|||
*Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|appropriate administrators' noticeboard]]. |
|||
Sanctions may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.<p> |
|||
This notice is effective only if logged at [[Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications]]. -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
| Ambox warning blue.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} |
|||
I have placed this notification here because you have initiated a couple of section about the page title on [[Talk: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] within the last two months: |
|||
*New name (21 August 2014) |
|||
*Alternative name (20 September 2014) |
|||
And I want to make sure that you have seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=628682800&oldid=628682701 this post]. If you have any questions about it then feel free to ask me on my talk page. -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:34, 7 October 2014
Welcome
Hello, Panam2014, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Common name / precision
We go by the WP:COMMONNAME and no one is going to call it that. It will be the constitution of 2014. ( or the constitution, but since there are multiple constitutions WP:PRECISION says we use the most precise title that will identify it - in this case constitution of 2014.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have looked at a dozen major english language news outlets from around the world and a vast majority call it a "new constitution" and not one calls it an amended version of a previous constitution. We follow the sources. Unless you can come up with a dozen major news sources to support your interpretation, we go with new. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of the Egyptian news sources I've read call it the "amended constitution." Read Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2014#Background It began with amending the 2012 constitution, so those sources support calling it the amended version of the (implied 2012) constitution.David O. Johnson (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Constitution on Tunisia
Did you get consensus to do this? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Egyptian Revolution of 2013. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. You insist on edit warring by moving the page without consensus. Please discuss on Talk:Egyptian Revolution of 2013. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- You can't just make a controversial edit like that and then open a new section on Talk asking for consensus. I will revert and please don't edit war. +There are many sections discussing this so no need to open a new one. Please go to Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état#Coup or revolution?. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Egyptian Revolution of 2013 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Revolution of 2013 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Revolution of 2013 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GreyShark (dibra) 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Article name
Greetings,
If you want to change the article's name, especially when it's controversial like that, please check this to know how to make a request so people can discuss it. You create a new section in the article's talk page where you type this:
{{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}
It has nothing to do with the majority of votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Revolution of 2013, it is related to the nature of the discussion, and i can defend the name there but i won't because it is not the appropriate place to discuss. So there is no consensus yet. You make the request and then notify the users who opposed the current title if you want. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think you should wait and see if the article survives deletion though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Nicolás Maduro. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you move a page maliciously, as you did at Egyptian Revolution of 2013, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is the fourth time you move this page without consensus and I already explained to you how to request for the article to be moved. This is no proper way to move an article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- You might get us both blocked if you keep edit warring. If you are unable to properly discuss, don't edit war. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- You discuss THEN make your change. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- The info is at the top. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Then what is your problem? I kept only one name at the top, the most common name too. It is important to include alternative names in the lead section and i kept only one. Also, this should be discussed in the article's talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- revolution is written down since there is controversy. I am oppose to keep the word and you haven't consensus --Panam2014 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- You don't have a consensus either and all you do is parroting what some other users said before with poor arguments. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- revolution is written down since there is controversy. I am oppose to keep the word and you haven't consensus --Panam2014 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Then what is your problem? I kept only one name at the top, the most common name too. It is important to include alternative names in the lead section and i kept only one. Also, this should be discussed in the article's talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- The info is at the top. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- You discuss THEN make your change. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Too. I offer you my new version and stop. Otherwise we will be stuck. It is useless to revolution twice.
. I am not a pro Mursi but I love the justice. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- We are stuck because of you Panam2014. The text was there in the beginning before you removed it. I already compromised by relocating "Second Egyptian Revolution" to the Etymology section because it is not as necessary as "June 30 Revolution" which is still a common name and should make it in the lead section. Your version should be discussed per BRD before being offered, even if i'm wrong. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- But you might as well go down there and explain revolution.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is not what our argument is about. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- But you might as well go down there and explain revolution.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- We are stuck because of you Panam2014. The text was there in the beginning before you removed it. I already compromised by relocating "Second Egyptian Revolution" to the Etymology section because it is not as necessary as "June 30 Revolution" which is still a common name and should make it in the lead section. Your version should be discussed per BRD before being offered, even if i'm wrong. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Bah so justly.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- You keep edit warring while the discussion is ongoing. And you should not be encouraged to do that. This will get us both blocked, not only me, and we don't want that. For the last time i advise you to discuss and seek the opinion of other editors. I will revert to the default version. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, do not come back and we'll be discussing if blocked--Panam2014 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- So you know we might be both blocked for violating the WP:3RR and you're still edit warring? Interesting.
- You are also imposing your version over the original one, and then you tell me to discuss? Very interesting. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Original version made without consensus. And what about you?--Panam2014 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is still the original version. There is no consensus on your version either. But like i said, this is the last time i will revert you and we'll see what happens next. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Original version made without consensus. And what about you?--Panam2014 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- So you know we might be both blocked for violating the WP:3RR and you're still edit warring? Interesting.
- There's no consensus in the original.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hassan Rouhani
Do you have a logical explanation for this, or do you simply like to revert everything i'm involved in? If you don't, please self-revert and discuss with other editors active on the article's talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- [1] it is you rather than iannule my changes.
- If you make controversial edits like that, you must explain them by providing sources because other users hardly notice things like that. Also, note that there is an article called Inauguration of Hassan Rouhani where it says the event occurred in two rounds on both August 3 and August 4. This suggests even more that it is a controversial decision and should be discussed with the other editors on the talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Official should be in the article as Adly Mansour or Olekandr Turchynov.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- You see, that's the problem..
- You always say "this is better", "it should be like this" or even "this is neutral", and you think no one will argue with you as if what you say is always the right thing and you are willing to edit war for that. This is not part of Wiki policy to denounce something as not neutral, because i can go around saying that January 2011 Egyptian protests is "more neutral" than Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and move the article without consensus. The last thing you said on Hahc21's talk page is "I can discuss" but all i see is orders, not discussions, on which you base your personal opinions, and what's worse is that you accuse me of "owning the article" and that i'm acting like a leader, while all i'm doing is denouncing the undiscussed removal of sourced content and that's not how Wikipedia works. The RM discussion was to rename the title, not to remove content inside the article like you did here, and i later compromised by moving "Second Egyptian Revolution" to the Etymology section and kept "June 30 Revolution" till we reach a consensus, but you insisted on relocating it without discussing. It's good to be WP:BOLD, i agree, but not when something is controversial like that per WP:BRD, as the removal of sourced content and the changing of dates when they could be debated. You should always consider that other editors will argue with you, and acting unilaterally like this on controversial edits can be considered very disrespectful to others and creates hostility when it leads to edit warring. Please self-revert and give a chance to other users to discuss it with you. Open up a new section in Talk:Hassan Rouhani about changing the date, and if no one replies for at least seven days, you can change the date later (that's the time needed for a bold consensus, and no one will complain later). Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Official should be in the article as Adly Mansour or Olekandr Turchynov.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you make controversial edits like that, you must explain them by providing sources because other users hardly notice things like that. Also, note that there is an article called Inauguration of Hassan Rouhani where it says the event occurred in two rounds on both August 3 and August 4. This suggests even more that it is a controversial decision and should be discussed with the other editors on the talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- For Rohani nobody complains except you. For Adly Mansour is brought President since July 4 not since July 3 (appointment) and Tourchynov Ukraine on February 23 is placed not 22 even though he had been appointed to that date. For Egypt, we all agree that there were protests but revolution is used by supporters that we do not even know that they are the majority. We will not deny revolution so it moves and the view is explained. If Morsi was dismissed by the High Constitutional Court agrees, but as is the army so not really even if there were demonstrations. For the 2011 revolution, both sides see it as a revolution. For a president we put the date investituture. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
For Rohani nobody complains except you
- Exactly, but do you know why? Because i'm apparently the only one who noticed. How do you know other users won't complain? Did you give them a chance to discuss? No.- And by the way, Adly Mansour was appointed on July 4 because the coup statement by el-Sisi started on the night of July 3, and by the time it had ended, it was already near midnight, therefore too late for Mansour to be appropriately appointed at the presidency. You could be right about Rouhani, but the infobox says "Assumed office" which can also mean "appointed" and many users could disagree about your decision. It is ok be bold, but this can be a debated change no matter how "small" it looks, and by the way, being bold does not mean you cannot be reverted if your decision was wrong. So like i said, the best method is to open up a new section in the talk page and give more space for others to discuss, then make your edit after seven days if no one replies. Sounds good?
For Egypt, we all agree that there were protests
- That's right, i agree that they were protests. But who do you refer to by "we all"? Because i'm sure we all agree that the 2011 events were also protests. That doesn't mean we're allowed to remove sourced content without discussing.revolution is used by supporters that we do not even know that they are the majority
- I can say the same thing about the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, but i don't. I also don't think The Guardian, Financial Times, Der Spiegel..etc are "supporters".We will not deny revolution so it moves and the view is explained
- But that's not what you did [2] [3] [4], and when i agreed that we can create a new paragraph, i didn't say we could remove all the names from the lead section but you left the discussion and made your change without reaching consensus.- Finally, i'm not trying to appear as the bad guy and i certainly didn't want to look rude (I apologize if you feel that was the case), but i'm very concerned about your decisions to make controversial moves, and when you're asked to discuss them, you don't participate and the only thing you say is "not neutral", "this looks better"..etc and this is all POV. I am willing to apologize and start all over from the beginning, but only if you acknowledge you did something wrong other than edit warring, like moving pages several times and eliminating sourced content without consensus, which was very disruptive and pushed some users like me and David O. Johnson, for example, to make technical requests. If you refrain from making such changes in the future, i will be more than glad to make peace and apologize. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK. The consultatiuons it begins. You can remttre partly revolution without removing the paragraph ^ but we must speak of financing the revolution. I invited you on Wikipedia in French because we need your advice. Use google translation. I would help you to Bourguiba.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You can remttre partly revolution without removing the paragraph
- It's not just about adding the word "revolution" to the lead section, it's about how you wanted to remove it. If you will refrain from making such edits, we will certainly come to an agreement that will help both of us. I'm apologizing for any rudeness that came from me, but you also have to decide what are you going to do in the future (about discussing controversial changes first).we must speak of financing the revolution
- If you have good and independent sources about that, i will be glad to help you by expanding the "Allegations of previous military involvement" section in the article. I personally don't think someone financed all the millions who took to the streets against Morsi, otherwise the person/government/organization that did that would go bankrupt. But i think you mean who financed Tamarod and other opposition groups, right? Do you have any sources that confirm that they were financed? Because as you see, the section is called "allegations", which means they are not confirmed and the claims are a journalists' personal opinion. If you find any reliable sources, you can expand this part of the article and like i said, i can help you. But please don't make it too long, otherwise we will have to call it conspiracy theories like the Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories.I invited you on Wikipedia in French because we need your advice
- I saw your entry in my talk page there, thanks. Can you provide me a link of the discussion where you're asking me to participate?Use google translation
- It's ok, i'm a French speaker too :)I would help you to Bourguiba
- Thanks, but i can't do much about it now because i'm in the middle of exams. When i'm done with them, i will start translating and you can help if you want. Thanks again. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Acting
According to [5], it is clear that President Sisi appointed a new government on 17 June, with Mahlab as PM. There's no mention that he's still acting PM, so please stop reverting. Cheers. --Sundostund (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't understand you. Please, look into the link which I posted - Mahlab stopped being acting PM on 17 June 2014. --Sundostund (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Of course - [6] clearly states Mahlab was appointed as acting PM on 1 March. I'm sure many more media sources like this could be found online... Anyway, its clear he was acting on 1 March. --Sundostund (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Dora and Friends.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dora and Friends.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
ISIL talk page
I removed your text diff, as it does not make any sense. Perhaps it was garbled by a technical gremlin. Please feel welcome to make further constructive contributions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War
As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which you have recently edited. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:
- Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
- If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
- A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
- Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
- Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.
This notice is effective only if logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I have placed this notification here because you have initiated a couple of section about the page title on Talk: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant within the last two months:
- New name (21 August 2014)
- Alternative name (20 September 2014)
And I want to make sure that you have seen this post. If you have any questions about it then feel free to ask me on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)