EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Reported for 1RR violation: new section |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Notice of the Syrian Civil War sanctions: new section |
||
Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr.User200 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: )]]. Since you've made a 1RR and have declined to undo it, it seems likely you will be blocked. Your above post suggests you don't care about our rules, which might tempt the closing admin to issue a long block. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC) |
See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr.User200 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: )]]. Since you've made a 1RR and have declined to undo it, it seems likely you will be blocked. Your above post suggests you don't care about our rules, which might tempt the closing admin to issue a long block. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Notice of the Syrian Civil War sanctions == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|'''''Please read this notification carefully,''' it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' |
|||
A [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]] for pages related to the [[Syrian Civil War]] and the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]. The details of these sanctions are described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''one [[Help:Reverting|revert]] per twenty-four hours [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|here]]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:12, 6 August 2016
Comment
How do this works?User200.48.214.19 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "User200.48.214.19", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it resembles an IP address. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks never new it was not apropiate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple
User200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks never new it was not apropiate.
Mr.User200, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Mr.User200! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC) |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Mr.User200! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 17:20, Wednesday, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
Your userpage
As you can see I have removed a section of your userpage that contained prejudicial speech. Such content, regardless of what group it is directed at, is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. As such I would ask that you not restore it and refrain from any further remarks that mock specific groups of people. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I will take my measures.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest that your 'measures' are still a big fail. Please read up on what is unacceptable usage of your user page. You're still using your user page as a blog. I would have no objections if you could produce reliably sourced statistics for what are, essentially, offensive aspersions, but presenting a load of bollocks about you version of "The Truth" using a tiny My 2 cents disclaimer (let's regard it as your own little article for ranting about everything that is wrong with Wikipedia) is simply a really, really, really stupid idea. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the insults....Iam taking notes.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can and do understand that some of your comments strike others as problematic. Believe it or not, whether they are acceptable or not by policies and guidelines, they probably act to your disadvantage. The one that really I think is going to strike a lot of people as insulting is the one where you say editors here look down on others as "lesser mortals." Yeah, we do and have had and will continue to have people with a "more-intelligent-than-thou" attitude, and, for all I know, I might be counted among them by some, maybe even including you. I think it is problematic because, whether we like it or not, and I don't, we do have quite a few editors who are probably in the best interests of the encyclopedia a bit of single-purpose editors. Particularly when the purpose is dealing with a problematic topic. And at least a few of them have also gone out of their way to find virtually every damn source they can find on the controversial topic, however inconsequential they might seem to others. If you were to ever cross paths with any of them, and they saw your user page, the chances of their thinking less charitably of you than you would probably want are, as you indicate on this page, pretty damn good, actually. Alienating your co-workers, or fellow volunteers, from the word go generally isn't a really good idea. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, so kind. Really, Iam not considering you a negative user Jhon. Thanks for your analisys.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Effects of My user page.
An offer
Mr.User200, I'll make you an offer: if you stop using your talk page and user page as if Wikipedia were a webhost, and if you refrain from throwing around accusations and poor jokes (like those now removed from your user page), you will be left in peace. Wikipedia has plenty of interest in keeping editors who contribute decent content, and you have indeed contributed content. But this martyrdom stuff has to stop: you are not being persecuted, you are not being harassed--you're simply not playing by the rules. Avoiding future run-ins is easy: stop thinking that you're being oppressed, and talking as if you are being oppressed, because you are not. But we are not a webhost, we are not a free-speech zone; we are all volunteers on a non-governmental and non-commercial website trying to spread some knowledge to the world. Play by the rules and you'll never hear from us again, unless it is to thank you for your positive contributions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- It took me a lot of time to make the Small thumb boxes of well known figures (Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Galileo, etc), why you errased them all. You dont even left one??. Well regarding your Offer. I dont know I you have the power to control others to "left me in peace". Others could continue their attacks. And I know there are a lot of people offended with the Lobby Section, but they are the same as the Userboxes with a big red "X" over, that many Wikipedians uses, soo whats the point here? They are Anti something user boxes. Regarding the jokes some people dont like, thats because my different way of humor. Its my user page not theirs? If the jokes were against any WP policy. I am Sorry, Someone errased them at the time, just in time to avoid another linching to me. Thanks for that. No more jokes then. But my Robot, the Don Quixote painting are simple part of a User Talk pages, I have seen weidest things in Userpages. Like the horrible painting of Goya. Not offensive remarks against anyone. The same as the 5 Misconceptions of Wikipedia, they are sourced with the Wp Guidelines. Another point you cant control other Users, How i Know anyone else will attack me again. I am tired of looking all that stupid yellow Boxes next to my user with arrasement. But I knew from day one, I will encounter "Angry mobs" especially from the U.S because of the Lobby stuff rather than the Jokes. Because its like that many arrogant Users, Auto-Alleged intellectuals insults other users and go happily acting in a harsh way to the comunity. When this will stop wikipedia is not going anywhere beacuse of them not me, I dont stalk anyone in its Talk Page. I promise you that the jokes will not return. At least nation oriented ones/or any negative joke. But left my User page Front page in Peace. Any comments here.Please Regarding the Lobby what can I tell you, It exist if you are not a seasoned editor in Historic Articles regarding middle east. Try to ask someone about the well know problem of Arbitrated Articles regarding that conflict, of the curious case in witch all killings made by the IDF, during wars are not considered massacres, (in the article name) despite they were. And all the attacks against Israeli Civillians are considered massacres. Its a organized job of many Users. Wikipedia Admins should be looking seriously this instead of linching a single new editor. The same could be said about the new wave of extreme-right-wing editors, that its rampant in History related Articles, they look after other right wing editors to cover up their mess. And pose as democratic. History articles are as hot issue as religious ones. However the latter are not edited periodically since Religion have not changed a lot time by time, like the History one because of news, Books, Studies, papers. etcMr.User200 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- So do you think I should refrain from posting more stuff at my talk page and start editing articles since before all of this. I agree Liz i will restart my editing duties. Thanks.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- The saddest part of this, Liz is that Mr. User has set him/herself up as the 'victim' of a self-fulfilling 'prophesy' without even attempting to be open-minded about the project and those involved. Considering that some of his/her few actual content contributions have been good, it's always a pity to watch potentially valuable editors feel that their preconceptions have been justified and take the easy way out by becoming one of the deriders who'll feel that they've given it a genuine try, only to be proven correct about their preconceptions. Still, as has been noted by the few actually even paying attention to Mr.User, it's his/her choice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- What a lame coment Iryna, Iam happy with my edits and User page, its lokks cool to me. If you dont like it and feel ofended, you need profesional help. What a Pity?! You should try to count to ten and take a long breath that will be fine for your health.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hama and Homs offensive
The toll (60-100) cited in the first source dated 20 April is for the WHOLE offensive, which encompasses the 40 dead from the second source (you added) dated 1 April. Thus adding up the 40, which was only for one day of the offensive, is double-counting. EkoGraf (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- The second article claim fighting in other zones of combat between NDF and ISIS. There is no part in the last article witch claims those losses are the cumulative including the 40 reported before. Thats a conclusion you draw.A personal research. Just like the Army casualties that you have invented by adding different sources from different time space. Mr.User200 (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- First, are you aware you just broke the reference and the infobox? Second, you are incorrect. Source clearly states about the later fighting According to a military source at the Hama Military Airport, ISIS has suffered a significant number casualties that are estimated between 60-100 fighters – similar to the number of casualties they sustained in the previous offensives. And refrain from accusing someone of committing personal research and inventing info which is contrary to WP: Verifiability and WP: Good faith. If anything, your figure of 100-140 is not backed up by the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- The second article claim fighting in other zones of combat between NDF and ISIS. There is no part in the last article witch claims those losses are the cumulative including the 40 reported before. Thats a conclusion you draw.A personal research. Just like the Army casualties that you have invented by adding different sources from different time space. Mr.User200 (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A paranormal invitation
Hello. I saw some of your recent edits and thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal. Joining the project doesn't entail any extra responsibilities; you'd just have to sign your name in the participants list, put the discussion page in your watchlist, and continue doing what you were already doing: editing. :) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks!!!Mr.User200 (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) reverts
First, this revert [1]. The campaign is not taking place in March and April alone anymore, but in May as well. Second, this revert [2]. Your combined totals are incorrect. You wrote 64 killed per pro-Hadi sources. The two sources indeed talk about 35 dead and 29 dead respectively, however, the first figure (35) is for dead on BOTH sides, not just for the Houthis. As for the second figure (29) it is claimed by officials...at no point is it stated they are pro-Hadi officials. EkoGraf (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Those official are Goverment Officials, Hadis Goverment not Houthis Oficials. Thats why that numbers are a complete mess, you are mixing once again numbers and giving a wrong figure.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- The first source clearly states the "pro-Hadi Oficial of 111th Brigade reported", I have discovered your edits focus in inflating Houthies losses using tricks and Bias, i dont know whats your agenda but i See a extreme pro-Saudi Bias in most of your edits, Disguised in a "R.S" remark.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I really have no idea what your problem is. But like I said at the article talk page, your accusations/conspiracy theories are inflammatory, offensive and violations of WP policy on civility and assuming good faith. I will explain it to you one last time. The pro-Hadi guy is claiming 35 dead on BOTH the Hadi and Houthi side. We already had the pro-Houthi guy saying they lost 20 of their fighters, so that leaves at least 15 potentially pro-Hadi fighters dead. This is in line with WP:CALC. Also, in your edit summary you mentioned casualties among AQ which I frankly have no idea where you got that from because its not mentioned anywhere in the source. EkoGraf (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have already given my apreciations, your Pro Saudi bias in all articles regarding that Operation are clear. Also the way of mixing & using diferent (Oposite) sources to fabricate a number are a clear ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Using Pro Hadi sources reported in a RS to disguise it, its not the way of reporting them.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your edit will be reverted since its an original Research and uses 2 diferent sources to build fabricated number.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- For the second time, read WP:CALC, not OR. And if we are to talk about fabricated, you are citing pro-Hadi sources for the Houthi number of dead when in fact one of the two sources is clearly cited as a pro-Houthi soldier. So who is fabricating now? PS In your haste this time you didn't even place pro-hadi etc in the correct place. EkoGraf (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have just now noticed that you violated the 3RR rule at the start of this edit war you initiated on 27 May. Considering I tried to explain to you the errors in your calculations and interpretations it is enough fair warning and I am obliged to report you to an admin for potential blocking. I myself will not make any more reverts because I myself don't want to break the 3RR rule. EkoGraf (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- For the second time, read WP:CALC, not OR. And if we are to talk about fabricated, you are citing pro-Hadi sources for the Houthi number of dead when in fact one of the two sources is clearly cited as a pro-Houthi soldier. So who is fabricating now? PS In your haste this time you didn't even place pro-hadi etc in the correct place. EkoGraf (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Warned per the 3RR complaint
Please see the result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr.User200 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Both warned). Be aware that admins can take action if they see battleground editing, which, if they read your user talk page, they might be alarmed about. If you find yourself having such a strong concern about some topic that you can't edit neutrally, you should probably avoid editing there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a look at User talk:EdJohnston#Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) reverts. Other editors complain about the sourcing of some of the casualty numbers. They are concerned that the numbers may not be attributed to the correct faction, Houthi or Hadi. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Warning about 1RR on Israeli-Arab conflict articles
All articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Arab-Israeli_Arbitration_Enforcement . Your latest edits on 2006 Lebanon War broke 1RR. If you continue this, you may be blocked from editing. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- User Amaya1 also 1RR my edits, does the current WP warning procedure contemplated that too?Mr.User200 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I warned him too, When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- User Amaya1 also 1RR my edits, does the current WP warning procedure contemplated that too?Mr.User200 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (May–December 2013), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Hellyer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Orion and Andromeda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Paul Hellyer have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Not only has the Huffington Post already been rejected as a WP:RS, note, also, that "asserted" falls under WP:WEASEL. Please read WP:WORDS and familiarise yourself with what is considered an encyclopaedic tone and what is not. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- A Youtube Video could be used as a Reliable Source?. I have a link of him saying that. If that was caught on video with over 40 persons there hearing, could that be used as a Source. I think its important to include that since its very impresive to say the least. That a Ex-Goverment official (Canadian) acknowledge that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWSkjb2n2_g Mr.User200 (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) - Just changed to a Reliable Source I found. Thanks for the advice. Cheers Irina.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- A Youtube Video could be used as a Reliable Source?. I have a link of him saying that. If that was caught on video with over 40 persons there hearing, could that be used as a Source. I think its important to include that since its very impresive to say the least. That a Ex-Goverment official (Canadian) acknowledge that.
September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First Battle of Ypres may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of October 2015 Aden missile attack, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_2015_Aden_missile_attack&redlink=1.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
edit summaries!!
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Aleppo offensive (October 2015) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Watchlists
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!Gizmocorot (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (August–December 2015), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army of Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2016), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2016), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
New Yemeni contributor with new sources in War on Yemen topic
Hey there! I am a new contributor in Wikipedia, started this week and I love the culture and personal efforts done by millions from around the world, and I decided to be one of them. I have noticed how much effort you done in Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen and I am very grateful. But there is a problem,only two types of sources are used, Pro-Saudi, and not aligned sources, I have a suggestion since you are one of the big page contributors in this link here : Sources Can you please leave a comment there? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YemArabSf (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Government casualties in the Khanasir offensive
Read the Arabic source again (94 SAA+16 Iranians/Afghans+9 Hezbollah equals 119 dead). You missed the 16 Iranians/Afghans. Also, we need the Arabic instead of the English source, because the English source doesn't mention the 20 Jund al-Aqsa fighters killed (also mentioned in the Arabic source), or the 16 Iranians/Afghans. EkoGraf (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL 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/Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL 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.
- Hello there, I have nominated this article up for deletion as it seems to be a content fork. As you are one of the main contributors to the article I believe it pertinent to notify of the notice. If you would like to join the discussion follow the link in the above description. If you have any questions, refer to the talk page on the article or leave a message on my talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Discrepancies in Houthi Casualty numbers
Hello, There are large discrepancies in the casualty figures on the page for the Saudi intervention in Yemen. Although I do not dispute the coalition casualty figures, the Houthi casualty figures don't match up. The total number of casualties of the war is 6000, with the civilian casualties standing at around 3000. Once we subtract the Coalition casualty figures, this leaves 2300 deaths unaccounted for. The citations for the Houthi casualties are related to only a few airstrikes, even though other reliable sources have stated that 45 houthi rebels were killed in one battle at Taiz, whereas the Houthi casualty count has only increased by 10 since new year 2016. I brought this up since I checked my notifications and found that you accused me of vandalizing the page. YemenLemon (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I will replay @YemenLemon: if @Mr.User200: allows me, any way, I live in a war zone, Had visits to Hajjah Governorate, and Sadah Governorate, witnessed and recorded a lot of Saudi airstrikes, and I am aware that there is over 3000 Houthi casualties and also over 3000 Saudi casualties, and also thousands of pro-Hadi loyalties casualties, but the problem is that in order to post that information into Wikipedia we use reliable source and also neutral sources that has no doubt, some users have problems when using pro-Houthi sources to post Saudi casualties, even if the houthi sources provide whole video record of attacking barracks that shows each killed pro-Saudi casualties, as well as users who has problems when using pro-Saudi sources to post Houthi casualties. so if you want to post Houthi casualties you can use pro-Houthi source from Al Masirah TV, every day after the news there is a 30 minutes report on funerals of casualties died while fighting Saudis, pro-Hadi & alQaeda, the reports are also saved in there YouTube channel if you want to include old reports, but lets not waste our Wikipedia time to the number of casualties, does not give much benefit to the article, it's better to focus first on reports that talks about Saudi war crimes & civilian crisis, that gives information that benefits the reader, as for the number of casualties, the number of casualties will be revealed after the war ends after 1,2 or 5 years then you can write the number of casualties using one source at that time. 967Bytes (Contact) 15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Syrian civil war infobox - casualties
I would ask that you discuss the issue first before reverting me for the third time.
1. There is a difference between Russian and Turkish soldiers who died as a consequence of the Syrian civil war. Russian soldiers died IN Syria while fighting alongside the Syrian government. Turkish soldiers died OUTSIDE Syria in Turkey on the border and were not fighting alongside the rebels.
2. A few of the Turkish soldiers in fact died in clashes with rebels on the border, so its missleading to list them in the rebel column.
3. All of the Turkish soldiers died BEFORE they started providing air-strikes and artillery fire in support of the rebels, which they only started earlier this year. You can not retroactively add all those that died in the years before to the rebel column when they were not fighting in support of the rebels at the time of their deaths.
4. The 80 OTHER foreign soldiers killed does not include the Russian (fighting alongside the government), American and Jordanian (fighting alongside the SDF) fatalities. EkoGraf (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- If any Turkish soldiers die as of this point (after they started direct involvement in Syria) and in direct support of the rebels and alongside them (just like the Russians and US-led Coalition) than THOSE we will list in the rebel column. I would not have a problem with that. EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Temp1
July 2016
Your recent editing history at Gotthard Base Tunnel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ZH8000 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Your last strings of edits are Censorship, plain and simple, articles should be neutral because they show both sides of an opinion. Thats the idea of being Neutral in Wikipedia. The perception of the Inaguration of being weird, strange is not a Scandal; its just an opinion contrary to the believe of "Alpine culture and history".Mr.User200 (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are being involved in an edit war. Please stop reverting and use talkpage to discus you're information there. SRich (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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. Katietalk 21:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
1RR Warning for Aleppo offensive (June–August 2016)
First, you just broke the 1RR policy that is applied to all Syrian war-related articles. Under this policy, you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on any page in less than 24 hours. With this edit [3] you made your second revert of my changes. I would ask you cancel your revert or I will be forced to report you. Second, please see the talk page, discuss the issue first before edit warring, the reliability of the source in question (SOHR) has been discussed multiple times over the years and each time consensus was that in this regard (casualties and territorial losses of ether side) its a highly reliable/authoritative source and not another rebel propaganda outlet (especially considering the rebels themselves attacked SOHR accusing it of being a few times pro-regime even). EkoGraf (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Go ahead, i dont have any problem, but i tell you. When a given criteria (whatever it is) is going to be used; it must be used for the whole article. You cant use a criteria for a especific part of the content of the article, and not for another. Thats a BIAS, edits must be balanced. And you are using the lowest reported number of rebel losses while using the highest rebel claim for regime forces. Thats BIAS. We have had lot of problems in the past,regarding the report of losses in this conflict and in the Yemen Civil War, and mostly because you dont display a fair use of sources, you always use them in favour of pro-rebels perspective, downplaying their losses. Tell me what are you going to do about this matter. If you want to call arbitration or ban me for 48 hours go ahead, i hope an Editor see the changes and understand the matter.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Reported for 1RR violation
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr.User200 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: ). Since you've made a 1RR and have declined to undo it, it seems likely you will be blocked. Your above post suggests you don't care about our rules, which might tempt the closing admin to issue a long block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Notice of the Syrian Civil War sanctions
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)