Jump to content

User talk:Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Selam

[edit]

Selam , Türk karşıtı kullanıcı Khoikhoi ingilizce wikipedia'da adminlik için şansını deniyor.Daha fazla türk gelirse bunu engelleyebiliriz. Oyunu burdan kullanabilirsin Teşekkürler. (85.97.143.5 18:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Anonymus, thank you for this information. My activities in Wikipedia mainly are restricted to questions which relate to the technical subject. So I do not want to intervene in personell affairs. According to the users user:Khoikhoi or User:Metb82 I am not prejudiced against one of them for the moment. Sorry for my (too) late response. user:Anglo-Araneophilus88.134.84.123 08:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transkription oder Transliteration arabischer Grapheme

[edit]

Hallo Araneophilus! Ich befürchte, ich kann Deine Frage nicht befriedigend beantworten, weil ich mich weniger um die arabische Schrift und Sprache kümmere, als um inhaltliche Dinge, was vor allem den Themenbereich Sufismus betrifft. Soviel aber kann ich Dir mitteilen: Es existiert in der deutschen Wikipedia die Seite Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen/Arabisch. Oder lies mal im Artikel Arabische Schrift oder klicke Dich von dort aus durch. Außerdem meine ich, daß Dir evtl. Benutzer:Orientalist weiterhelfen könnte. Wenn nicht, dann kann vielleicht auch er Dich "weiterreichen". Viele Grüße, Mounir (deutsche WP) | Mounir (englische WP) 20:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Du gibst auf Deiner deutschen und englischen Benutzseite Dein Englischniveau mit 2 an, aber hier auf Anglo-Araneophilus mit 1. Ich denke, es handelt sich da nur um einen Tippfehler, oder?

Account- und Datumsangabe

[edit]

Hallo! Zu Deiner Frage: "Wie kann man denn seine Tilden (mit dem Erfolg von Account- und Datumsangabe) mit einem englischen Account in der deutschen WP setzen?" - Also: Ich kann es auch nicht, auch wenn es im ersten Moment so ausschaut. Ich hatte Dir ja auf dieser englischen Diskussionsseite eine Antwort geschrieben, also sind Datum etc. aus der englischen Wikipedia. Da ich aber immer meine Antworten noch einmal auf meiner eigenen Diskussionsseite direkt zu der dazugehörenden Frage einfüge, damit dort die "Unterhaltung" auch als solche gelesen werden kann, wurde eben in diesem Fall das UTC-Datum mit rüberkopiert. Ganz einfach, hatte ich auch gar nicht so geplant... Und den Link zur eigenen Benutzerseite hatte ich manuell eingetippt. Wenn Du jetzt und hier auf "Seite bearbeiten" klickst, dann kannst Du sehen, was man da eingeben muß. Aber das weißt Du eigentlich eh schon, weil Du soviel ich meine, Deine englische Unterschrift auch schon in meine deutsche Diskussion gesetzt hast. Grüße, --Mounir 08:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ihr könnt es unter My preferences/user profile/Nickname so machen
[[User:Tickle me|tickle me(en)]] [[:de:Benutzer:Tickle me|tickle me(de)]]
oder so
[[User_talk:Tickle me|tickle me(en)]] [[:de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Tickle me|tickle me(de)]]
"Raw signatures" muß dabei aktiv sein.
Es wird aber wohl nicht gerne gesehen, eine weiteres Konto in der betreffenden Sprache ist erwünscht. Ich hab's bei mir nur jetzt zur Demonstration aktiviert. --tickle me(en) tickle me(de) 23:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Für andere bequem und gern gesehen ist dies:
[[User:Tickle me|tickle]] [[User_talk:Tickle me|me]]
--tickle me 23:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linnaeus

[edit]

Danke für den Tipp, ich habe den Link hinzugefügt. Da ich sowieso Deutscher bin, kannst du mir also ruhig in deutsch auch schreiben ;-) Aus deinem Benutzernamen entnehme ich, daß du Spinnenliebhaber bist, ich habe u.a. ein paar Fotos Kappadokischer Spinnen auf meiner Insektenseite, wenn du Lust hast, schau mal rein...-- ✉katpatuka →

Seltsamer Edit/Tickle_me

[edit]

Seltsamer_Edit - Hallo tickle! Danke für Aufklärung, Link und deine sorgfältige Arbeit am Thema.: Ich habe seit einiger Zeit Probleme mit einigen usern wegen meiner Teilnahme an Diskus bzw. Edits zu Völkermord an den Armeniern oder islambezogenen Themen. Mein Fehler hier hat desw. ziemlich gehässige Reaktionen auf meiner Disku zu Folge (Ich versteh nur noch Bahnhof. Bei türkischen Begriffen entfernst du die Sonderzeichen...). In dieser Hinsicht wäre es nett, wenn du deinen berechtigten Dank an PJacoby um obige Bemerkung ergänzen könntest, es ist sonst IMO etwas mißverständlich. --tickle me 07:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yörük

[edit]

Dein Bemühen um den Artikel "Yörük" zeigt, dass es sich lohnt, meine Fassung genau anzusehen. Dabei, denke ich, bist du mit deinen Änderungen etwas über das Ziel hinausgeschossen. So meine ich, dass keine Verweise auf die Literatur im Text sein sollten. Es ist in Enzyklopädieartikeln entgegen wissenschaftlichen Essays nicht üblich. Zudem halte ich es nicht für angebracht, z. B. bei Kunze die einzelnen Aufsätze anzuführen. Die Literaturangaben sollen einen ersten Einstieg ermöglichen, nicht mehr! Manche Textteile, die du versucht hast zu präzisieren, waren von mir bewusst in der Schwebe gehalten. Dadurch konnte manchmal mehr ausgesagt werden als mit z. B. zeitlich eingeschränkten Angaben. Den Völkermord an den Armeniern sollte man in diesem Artikel nicht erwähnen. Er hat hier keine Relevanz und provoziert nur einen zu erwartenden Edit-war.
Beste Grüße --84.149.218.254 (Wetwassermann) 06:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Da du ernsthafte Meinungen gerne überliest, hier im Scherz: wegen deiner „Halßstarrigen Bezeügung“ gehörst du "in der Landrichterstube arretiert". Mehr Zuneigung kann ich dir nicht bezeügen. --Wetwassermann 12:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 11:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Hallo Ww"
Musste das sein? Du benimmst dich inzwischen wie ein trampeliger Schuft. --84.149.241.153 06:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm back from my wikibrake

[edit]

Post your suggestions of changes for the Ottoman Armenian casulties. Thanks Fad (ix) 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Souchon

[edit]

Hallo Anglo-Araneophilus, ich glaube Du wolltest mehr Info zu Souchons Dienstgrad haben. Souchon war Konteradmiral, als er die Goeben und Breslau nach Konstantinopel brachte. Ansomsten kann ich nur noch hinzufügen, dass er am 29. Oktober 1916 den "Pour le Merite" erhielt und zu diesem Zeitpunkt meines Wissens Vizeadmiral war. Ob er danach eine weitere Beförderung zum Admiral erhielt, entzieht sich meiner Kenntnis.Cosal 12:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Asker-Autor

[edit]

Auf der deutschen WP stört sich mal wieder jemand (Decius) an deinem Asker-Artikel. Schau mal bei Gelegenheit rein, ich weiss nicht, ob ich es alleine schaffe, ihn zu beruhigen. --Mustafa Mustamann 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Anglo-Araneophilus

[edit]

Ich habe gerade diese Nachricht auf ihren deutschen Diskussionsseiten hinterlassen !

  • Guten Abend Anglo-Araneophilus

ich würde ihnen gern eine email schicken aber das geht leider nicht mehr, - vielleicht sind Sie ja so nett mir [http://www.ifgg.uni-karlsruhe.de/index.php.cgi/ger/personen/akad_mitarbeiter_innen/dr_christophe_neff ] dort eine Nachricht zu hinterlassen. Ich habe gerade so mitbekommen, was da alles geschehen ist, und ich bin wirklich perplex ! viele herzliche Grüße Christophe Neff 22:33, 7. Jun. 2008 (CEST) Vielleicht sind Sie ja so nett und geben mir ein feed-back ! herzliche grüße Christophe Neff (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WhiteWriterspeaks 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anglo-Araneophilus. You have new messages at Jerry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Bridge

[edit]

I added infobox. If you can add some more data, or solve name chaos, that would be quite useful. What do you think, what should be do with the name? It looks like Ibar bridge is quite common also... --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, WhiteWriter, I really don't know. I still did not found real official sources and I think I won't look for them anymore. I needed this particular information whether the bridge really already existed in 2004, in order to integrate this in the "German" article about the 2004 pogroms. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I overlooked one detail: I think "Austerlitz Bridge" is not the official name. In The Guardian article you recommended to me, it is said: "The bridge over the Ibar River has been dubbed 'Pont d'Austerlitz' by French peacekeeping troops after the stately bridge in Paris". So this means the name is not official and it was even the name of the "old" bridge as well, already in 1999. So when we call it Austerlitz Bridge in the info box we might have to give the first date op opening (I mean the date of the "old" bridge). It is confusing: we have to clarify, whether one has to treat it as "one" same bridge, which just was refurbished or whether we have to treat it as two different bridges. And then we have to clarify, for which period we can use the name "Austerlitz Bridge" (for "both" bridges or only for the latter?) and whether we can use it at all, since it is kind of trivial name. I'm sorry I did not help a lot. It's just the tip of the iceberg we know. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images from 17th-18th March 2004. Just as info, and confirmation that it was there. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WhiteWriterspeaks 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rabaa Square before and after

[edit]

Hi, I added the missing data. Thank you. (Mazidan (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you so much! --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

[edit]

Information icon Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:August 2013 Rabaa Massacre for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. This is a level-2 warning/notification because you've been on Wikipedia long enough and you should know the rules by now. I am also entitled to give you a warning regarding your continuous violations of WP:CIVIL, but I'd better leave this to other uninvolved editors instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the information I offered there is about your suggestion to avoid the term "mass killing" and "massacre" in the title. It is no general discussion of the topic. When you start reading the sources you will see it yourself. I don't know what a "level-2 warning" is, but it seems to me, you avoid arguing on the subject and try to ban me here. Did I get it right? In case you refer to my right of reply: When someone calls me Turkish I should have the right to comment this on exactly the same page. I am long enough on Wikipedia to see, when a biased article needs improvement. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A talk page is to discuss the many ways of improving an article, not to attack an editor through his/her contributions on other articles. You claim that I am absolutely of no interest to you, but your comments suggest otherwise and apparently I am your new agenda here. Honestly, I don't care, so if you want to defend this article from "Fitzcarmalan's evil propaganda", feel free to do so. I was even wondering for a while who was behind those 200,000+ byte-sized articles on the German Wikipedia. An experienced editor like you should know what the purpose of a talk page is (unless the German Wiki has different guidelines), so please save the energy you waste by antagonizing me to improve the article instead if you think it is biased. Personally, I've never been significantly involved in its editing process that much and here are all of my edits there. So again, please save your accusations and work on the article if you think it needs improvement. P.S. I'm not trying to get anyone "banned" and I don't have the capacity to do so. I'm just giving you a chance to stop your counter-productive, and to some extent, disruptive ad hom bludgeoning arguments. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listen Fitzcarmalan, you know best how bad you worked here. And you know best you refused to read or acknowledge the sources' contents, still stating that "massacre" is a Muslim Bortherhood term, ignoring that scientists, human rights organisation and leading western investigative journalists in Egypt use it, too. Contrary to me personally, by the way. I'm just giving you a chance to stop your counter-productive, and to some extent, biased work in this article. I don't need a "level-... warning" for you. I use reliable sources and even your own sources. This is quite enough to show what you are doing here. This is not against you (maybe we would be best friends when meeting, who knows), it is only and alone against the way you work in Wikipedia. You can change it and I am the first who will recognise, when you start working accurately. I don't care about the origin of users at all, I even don't care much about the political opinions or general ideologies of users, they may have all their good reasons and place in this world. But I care a lot of the methods they use writing in WP. And this is the deficit you have to get aware. And there is no place for such methods in an article, dealing with the deaths of more than 900 people. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty confident about my work here. I do accept criticism on my contributions, but I will not tolerate groundless accusations and personal attacks. When I violate the rules, feel free to report me on ANI. And again, if you think you are able to improve the article and save it from my biased work, then go ahead and do so. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think logical: you say, you you've "never been significantly involved in its editing process that much". To do that, you would have had to read sources od course. And all your edits show, you did not carefully do that. They make clear, you don't know about the important reports, the name of the authors, the recently given numbers and details. But nevertheless you have definitely dominated the process and decisions, connected with the determination of the lemma, based mainly on your private impresssion. Therefore you distorted the information given in the literature. Exectly this point - nothing else - I attacked, with very good reasons. And you should be grateful for that. When I attack this method and approach of yours, you should indeed "accept (this) criticism on (your) contributions". Instead of that you declare each time, you don't care about my words, but at the same time you call them - again and again - "groundless accusations and personal attacks", without even responding to the technical arguments, I offered in the discussion. I can't help you, Fitzcarmalan. Your only weapon is your suavity and the impression of mortification, you communicate. But you deny any insight with regard to technical contents. And you do so since months. Not only according to my factual submissions, but according to those of other authors, too. There is no personal thing between us. at least not from my side. I refer to this article and to your behaviour there. To nothing else. So please keep calm and look at the facts only. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. I am tired of getting notifications from you all the time, and when I take a look, there is nothing but crap thrown against me. I've politely asked one of the IPs to stop using the talk page as a forum. He then thanked me through another IP but continued the disruption with it. A third IP came up and this time I asked him/her to create their own account in order to avoid having others accusing me of sockpuppetry. I am not playing admin and I have nothing to explain to you. By the way, the IP didn't go off topic as much as you did, and even if, I will have to remove hide many other comments, including yours. But I can't because this is an important discussion and because only parts of your entries and the IP's entries are irrelevant to the discussion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the IP's accusation of being biased because of alleged "Turkish" nationality (or whatelse it claimed). Is that what you call irrelevant? But it is not irrelevant, when someone who tries to hide information given by reliable sources tries to difame those who provide this information and sources. According to your pinging: I use the whole form [[user:...]] for identification of users since I started to work here. The (somewhat newly created) notification function was not my idea and I will refer to sources in future as I did in past - when I think it is appropriate to do so. By the way, I got 4 of those notifications (by Fitzcarmalan and another 4 by IPs 197.163.69.48 and 197.163.8.128, and 197.163.18.204 since July 9. It seems you forgot your own "pinging" rules. And you still are not tired to send me more WP rule links. I can send you some quite more fundamental and important ones referring to quality standards of edits in WP, especially on those dealing with political matters, if you need them. This is why we got in contact, nothing more. Think about it. I'm not here for your pleasure. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to your "I don't want anyone accusing me of sockpuppeteering because my IP address also starts with 197". Very entertaining, but don't worry: "You" or "he/she" has the right to use an IP starting with "197". I don't compare IPs and never accused someone of "sock puppeteering" because of similar IPs. I compare terms, argues and methods. That's more worth than seeing, that you, "he/she" types from Cairo. No surprise at all, quite the opposite. --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]

Never mind, Usaeedi, I don't accept awards and medals, not by you, nore by anyone else. Anyway they just make vain and lazy. And finally I did not deserve it at all, because I am not neutral at all, but completely biased - in aid of science, work, and honesty. Take care! --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no problem. Please continue your contribution. --Usaeedi (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The 1001: A Nature Trust may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , [[Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild|Baron Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild]], [[Juan Antonio Samaranch]] (president of the [[Presidents of the International Olympic Committee|IOC]], Peter von Siemens ([[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The 1001: A Nature Trust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Morris. 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) 09:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

[edit]

Hello Anglo-Araneophilus and thank you for the work in Wikipedia. I just saw you have no e-mail selected. Just a tip: You could choose one at the preferences. Your e-mail will not be visible to any other users, but people could write to you with it in case it shall not be public and you would have a additional safety for the account (you could reset the password with it). --Larsenat (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Larsenat, I wasn't "on" for a while. Every communication from and with me here may be and stay public. As for me there's no need for e-mails. Anyway thank you for your hint. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

[edit]

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Anglo-Araneophilus. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

22:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

[edit]

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

10:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Servas olde Wurschthaut

[edit]

Kunnst am User:Al-Andalusi amol derzähln, das i koin bleda Kerl bin? Der Arme is beim hiesigen Taharrush gamea ganz schee gega die Wand gfohrn. Mir reichts au mittlerweil. User:Al-Andalusi, I was not aware of the ongoing AN3 process and not overly impressed by your choice of words at the Taharrush gamea disksite. So the short block was appropriate. But I understand some of your points in the meanwhile. Anglo-Araneophilus is aware of my work on the German version and we had some valuable discussions overthere. See Talk:New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany#Requested_move_22_January_2016 for that experience. Polentarion Talk 04:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't watch the dispute in en:WP. Hope you find a solution all together. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. Point is, User:Al-Andalusi seems to blame both me and the rest. My point - as you and I know and discussed on deWP - is more differentiated and I am surely not the one to call taharrush "the circle of hell" in a lede. Polentarion Talk 17:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

At this point I would like to warn you that you have conducted 3 reverts of my edits. I myself have just made a third revert and will not do any more at the moment. However, I am obligated to warn you that conducting more than three reverts is a violation of the 3RR rule that can result in a block. EkoGraf (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS In regard to your speculation the casualties may have taken place in Yemen as well... Reuters source clearly states Mortars and rockets fired at Saudi Arabian towns and villages have killed 375 civilians... And the 2nd source clearly cites the general that all figures came from the Saudi Civil Defence, which acts in Saudi Arabia. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Mortars and rockets fired at Saudi Arabian towns and villages" does not necessarily mean, that they hit targets in Saudi-Arabia only.
2. Reuters also said "killed 375 civilians" whreas AFP quotes: ""375 (civilians) were killed and injured,"" and says "killed or wounded 375 civilians in Saudi border regions". So we have completely conflicting data. We don't know any details.
PS: It's not the first time you are "warning" and repeatedly reverting at the same time without and instead of improving the article. I'll wait if you can prove your claims. Otherwise it has to be corrected. This is an encyclopedia, not a sand box for private or arbitrary interpretation and modification of sources. Understand and accept it. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously making speculation contradictory to the sources and based on your own opinion, which is a violation of the OR rule. Sources are clear all casualties were sustained in Saudi Arabia. Casualties from within Yemen are not even implied at any point. Anyway, you made 4 cancellations of my edits despite my warning so you will be reported. I'm sorry. EkoGraf (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you know that I'm using sources very carefully improving the article substantially. And you know that I know that you are not doing so. So everyone is doing what he can do best. If you feel other "obligations" than working constructively on the text, I hardly can stop you. You'll proceed counting edits in order to report collegues then. No one wants to work with people, who act as you are doing. And this approach does not help the encyclopedia anyway. Look at your edits in this article and look at mines and everyone knows what this means. I may leave you "sorry", but I don't want to leave the encyclopedia's readers sorry with bad work and bad interpreting of poor sources. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Yemeni contributor with new sources in War on Yemen topic

[edit]

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) 15:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see which concrete content (exact wording) you are referring to since it has been removed from the article history, but I read your comments and of course I'll take care to continue my editing in compliance with copyright restrictions and in encyclopedian style. No question. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks reveal that there's still problems with inadequate paraphrasing and outright copying. For example, content was copied directly from http://www.msf.org/article/yemen-health-facilities-under-attack-msf-wants-answers. I have re-written part of the material and removed one paragraph that needs to be re-written. Please see this diff. Repeated copyright violations after receiving warnings will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Friend, please take the time to write out what you have read in your own words! Don't get blocked! Your editing on that article is invaluable, don't want to lose you! Best wishes. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from Germany :)
Don't worry and thanks, BowlAndSpoon. :) --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: First: Thanks for re-writing and for your explanation. My English is limited and I know I've got deficits in paraphrasing and re-wording in English language. But there is a significant difference between violating copyright restrictions and using a suboptimal linguistic style. Secondly: Thanks that you did not remove the article's history of the edit you modified this time. This enables us to agree on finding a solution for the problem. In order to understand what you are referring to, let's have a look at the example you gave (diff) (all the sentences, you've modified or deleted for re-writing). I re-wrote (diff) even this passage in response to your warning to get me blocked from editing in en:WP because of "copyright" violations. Let's see why it did not meet your demands: We've got at least one or two source wordings (often MSF and HRW) and "my" wording. Let's compare:
1) MSF: "MSF medical activities in Yemen have come under attack four times in less than three months, each incident more serious than the last."
1) my edit: "In less than three months Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) medical activities in Yemen came under attack four times."
2) MSF: "The first took place on 26 October, when fighter jets from the Saudi-led coalition repeatedly bombed a hospital in Haydan district, Saada Province."
2) HRW: "These include six airstrikes on October 26, on a Doctors Without Borders (Medecins sans Frontieres, MSF) hospital in the northern town of Haydan, wounding two patients."
2) my edit: "The first took place on 26 October, 2015, when fighter jets from the Saudi-led coalition repeatedly - HRW documented six Saudi-led airstrikes - bombed a MSF hospital in Haydan district (Sa'dah Governorate), wounding two patients."
3) HRW: "Brig. Gen. Ahmad al-Assiri, the coalition’s military spokesman, said on January 31, 2016, that the strike had been the result of “human error,” but did not outline any steps taken to hold the responsible military personnel to account, or to compensate those wounded in the strike."
3) my edit: "The Saudi-led coalition said on January 31, 2016, that the strike had been the result of "human error," but did not outline any steps taken to hold the responsible military personnel to account, or to compensate those wounded in the strike."
4) MSF: "An MSF mobile clinic was then hit by an airstrike on 2 December in Taiz’s Al Houban district, wounding eight people including two MSF staff and killing one person nearby."
4) HRW: "Since then, coalition airstrikes have hit MSF facilities twice. An airstrike hit a mobile clinic on December 2, 2015, in Taizz, wounding eight people, including two staff members, and killing one other civilian nearby."
4) my edit: "An Saudi-led coalition airstrike then hit a MSF mobile clinic on December 2, 2015, in Al Houban district (Taizz), wounding eight people, including two MSF staff members, and killing one other civilian nearby."
5) MSF: "On 10 January the MSF-supported Shiara hospital came under attack in an incident that killed six people and injured at least seven, most of them medical staff and patients."
5) HRW: "On January 10, a projectile hit an MSF-supported hospital in Saada, killing six people and wounding at least seven, most of them medical staff and patients."
5) my edit: On January 10, 2016, a projectile hit the MSF-supported Shiara hospital in Sa’ada, killing six people and wounding at least seven, most of them medical staff and patients.
6) BBC: "MSF said it was unclear whether the hospital was hit in an air strike by warplanes of a Saudi-led coalition, or by a rocket fired from the ground. But it added that planes were seen overhead at the time one projectile flattened hospital buildings, and at least one other landed nearby."
6) HRW: "MSF said it could not confirm the origin of the attack, but its staff had seen planes overhead at the time of the attack."
6) my edit: "MSF said it could not confirm whether the hospital was hit in an air strike by warplanes of the Saudi-led coalition, or by a rocket fired from the ground, but its staff had seen planes overhead at the time of the attack, and at least one other landed nearby"
7) MSF: "On 21 January, an MSF ambulance was hit and its driver killed in a series of airstrikes that wounded dozens and killed at least six in Saada Governorate."
7) HRW: "On January 21, 2016, an airstrike on the northern town of Saada hit an MSF ambulance, killing its driver and six other people, and wounding dozens."
7) my edit: "On January 21, 2016, a airstrikes of airstrikes on the town of Saada hit an MSF ambulance, killing its driver and six other people, and wounding dozens." (in this sentence I intended to write "...a series of airstrikes on the town of Saada hit a MSF ambulance...")
8) MSF: "MSF has yet to receive any official explanation for any of these incidents."
8) HRW: "MSF said on January 25 that it had not received any official explanation for any of these incidents."
8) my edit: "MSF said on January 25 that it had not received any official explanation for any of these incidents."
9) MSF: "“Increasingly, we are seeing attacks on medical facilities being minimised, being labelled ‘mistakes’ or ‘errors’,” says Ayora. “Just last week the UK Foreign Secretary claimed that there have been no deliberate breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This implies that mistakenly bombing a protected hospital would be tolerable. This logic is offensive and irresponsible.”"
9) my edit: "Raquel Ayora, MSF Director of Operations, said, that attacks on medical facilities were Increasingly being minimised, being labelled ‘mistakes’ or ‘errors’. She criticised, that the UK Foreign Secretary claimed that there had been no deliberate breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen by Saudi Arabia and said: "This implies that mistakenly bombing a protected hospital would be tolerable. This logic is offensive and irresponsible.""
For better understanding: you are claiming, "Spot checks reveal that there's still problems with inadequate paraphrasing and outright copying", but as far as I can see none of these sentences - you are referring to - is the result of "outright copying". Every single one has been redacted and often even by combining with a second source. When you find "inadequate paraphrasing"s, this might be a question of general quality improvement of the article, not of blocking me from editing. You'll always (not only in my edits) find some parts of wordings that are identical with those used in the sources and this can even be a sign of precise work rather than violation of copyrights. I can cite many edits of other editors if wished, so you can compare. So can you explain which of these sentences were that copyright critical in your opinion, that you felt called upon to warn me here for a second time? So that I can understand your point better? Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I prepared a modification of the chapter "Calls for international independent investigations" yet. If you agree I can post it here on my talk page for you to check if it meets your idea of work in compliance with WP rules. Maybe this is the best way to avoid a third warning of yours. If you find the content not in compliance with copyright standards, you can delete it here on my talk page, so no reader will have contact with it. Maybe just tell me whether I shall post it here or not. In oder to continue my work on the article and by that time avoiding to get blocked I have to understand whether I understood you right. This could be a way to ckeck it out. What do you think about it? Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff in which I found copyright violations. It might be useful to highlight in bold the material that is identical in both the source webpage and your addition:
Source page http://www.msf.org/article/yemen-health-facilities-under-attack-msf-wants-answers:

MSF medical activities in Yemen have come under attack four times in less than three months, each incident more serious than the last. The first took place on 26 October, when fighter jets from the Saudi-led coalition repeatedly bombed a hospital in Haydan district, Saada Province. An MSF mobile clinic was then hit by an airstrike on 2 December in Taiz’s Al Houban district, wounding eight people including two MSF staff and killing one person nearby. MSF has yet to receive any official explanation for any of these incidents. “Increasingly, we are seeing attacks on medical facilities being minimised, being labelled ‘mistakes’ or ‘errors’,” says Ayora. “Just last week the UK Foreign Secretary claimed that there have been no deliberate breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This implies that mistakenly bombing a protected hospital would be tolerable. This logic is offensive and irresponsible.”

Your addition:

In less than three months Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) medical activities in Yemen came under attack four times. The first took place on 26 October, 2015, when fighter jets from the Saudi-led coalition repeatedly - HRW documented six Saudi-led airstrikes - bombed a MSF hospital in Haydan district (Sa'dah Governorate), wounding two patients. An Saudi-led coalition airstrike then hit a MSF mobile clinic on December 2, 2015, in Al Houban district (Taizz), wounding eight people, including two MSF staff members, and killing one other civilian nearby. MSF said on January 25 that it had not received any official explanation for any of these incidents. Raquel Ayora, MSF Director of Operations, said, that attacks on medical facilities were Increasingly being minimised, being labelled ‘mistakes’ or ‘errors’. She criticised, that the UK Foreign Secretary claimed that there had been no deliberate breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen by Saudi Arabia and said: "This implies that mistakenly bombing a protected hospital would be tolerable. This logic is offensive and irresponsible."

Regarding the material you want me to check over, it would be better if you pasted it into your sandbox where we can later delete it if need be. Please understand that I am not available to check for copyright violations or help you re-write all of your future edits. You are going to have to learn how to do it yourself if you plan to continue editing here. — Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quick response. Very interesting markings. I'll come back to this later. First my proposal for the chapter "Calls for international independent investigations", which you can find on my draft subpage: First version (diff) is as it has to replace the current version of the chapter in the article. The second version (diff) contains all references with complete ref tags, in case you should need it for comparison reasons. Thanks for your help to clarify what kind of standards you are expecting. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Examining the edit shows that the gist of the edit is that you propose to add the material I have copied into my sandbox. Comparing the addition with the sources provided using the copyvio detection tool shows a 52.2% overlap with the source article With US help, Saudi Arabia is obliterating Yemen. Most of this is because of the quotation, but there's some distinctive phrases that can and should be changed. Here are some suggested wordings:
  • "heavy civilian toll in Yemen" → "civilian loss of life in Yemen"
  • "Shortly after, the Netherlands responded with a draft resolution at the UN's Human Rights Council that would have mandated the creation of a UN mission as such a body to document violations by all sides over the previous year" → "Shortly after, the Netherlands tabled a draft resolution at the UN's Human Rights Council calling for UN documentation of human rights violations over the past year by all participants in the conflict"
  • "On 30 September, 2015, the Netherlands withdrew the proposal, after intense pressure from Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners, and little support from Western governments." → "After it failed to garner much support, they withdrew the proposal on 30 September 2015."
  • "Instead, the UN Human Rights Council passed by consensus an alternative resolution, drafted by Saudi Arabia and issued by the government of President Hadi, which only called on the UN "to provide technical assistance and to work with the government of Yemen, as required" for a national commission of inquiry run by the Saudi-backed and exiled Yemeni government, but made no reference to any independent, international inquiry" → "In its place, the UN Human Rights Council passed by consensus a Saudi proposal calling for the UN to provide "technical assistance" to the Yemeni government, which was to set up a national commission of inquiry into the allegations of human rights abuses." — Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick and detailed response. I'll provide a response to your post of 20:48, 22 February 2016, some later. For now I'd like to answer with regard to my proposed addition of chapter "Calls for international independent investigations". Some of your proposals are not just paraphrases, but are in fact change the sources' statements. For instance:
  • "heavy civilian toll in Yemen" → "civilian loss of life in Yemen": this is a serious mitigation of the sources statement. The sources deal with a civilian death toll of about or more than 50% of the overall death toll in the overall conflict. Many independent sources (UN, human right groups, aid organisations) and importat media call that "heavy". Why should it be a copyright violation to report the term "heavy"? In the context of the concerned passage it is even substantial. Therefore your proposal is no improvement due to copyright restrictions, but a serious deterioration of the sources' statement. Cf. for instance:
"heavy toll on civilians of the conflict in Yemen" - United Nations: Statement by Adama Dieng, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and Jennifer Welsh, Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, on the situation in Yemen (16 February 2016), 16 February 2016 (PDF)
"heavy civilian loss of life" - (New York Times: Saudi Objections Halt U.N. Inquiry of Yemen War,30 September 2015, by Nick Cumming-Bruce).
  • "Shortly after, the Netherlands responded with a draft resolution at the UN's Human Rights Council that would have mandated the creation of a UN mission as such a body to document violations by all sides over the previous year" → "Shortly after, the Netherlands tabled a draft resolution at the UN's Human Rights Council calling for UN documentation of human rights violations over the past year by all participants in the conflict": Your proposal completely removed the information that the Netherlands acted in response to the call of the UN human rights chief. Further more the information, that the draft resolution would have give a mandat to establish a UN mission (that is a specific body and mechanism) was removed by only saying that it called for "UN documentation". This is again a mitigation (of the draft resolution's significance) of the sources statement. Again I son't see an improvement due to copyright restrictions, but a unnessesary aberration from the sources' statements.
  • "On 30 September, 2015, the Netherlands withdrew the proposal, after intense pressure from Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners, and little support from Western governments." → "After it failed to garner much support, they withdrew the proposal on 30 September 2015.": This proposal is another serious mitigation of the sources' statements and even an untenable concealment. It completely removed - without substitution - the reported "intense pressure from Saudi Arabia and its coalition partner" and only mentions missing support. This has nothing to do with what the sources describe. Your proposal did not provide a paraphrase but clearly changed the depiction in the sources.
  • "Instead, the UN Human Rights Council passed by consensus an alternative resolution, drafted by Saudi Arabia and issued by the government of President Hadi, which only called on the UN "to provide technical assistance and to work with the government of Yemen, as required" for a national commission of inquiry run by the Saudi-backed and exiled Yemeni government, but made no reference to any independent, international inquiry" → "In its place, the UN Human Rights Council passed by consensus a Saudi proposal calling for the UN to provide "technical assistance" to the Yemeni government, which was to set up a national commission of inquiry into the allegations of human rights abuses.": And again your proposal removed without any substitution one main statement, that is that the new draft resolution "made no reference to any independent, international inquiry". Also you removed the information, that the exiled Yemeni government issued this draft resolution, which is of course important, since the exiled Yemeni government is party of the conflict (as emphased in the sources). The connection of the main meaning of the draft resolution (as depicted in the sources) to the chapter content "Calls for international independent investigations" is completely erased. This is again a serious mitigation of the sources' statements.
To sum it up: as far as I can judge none of your proposed wordings is a suitable rendering of the cited sources. Every single one is even mitigating the sources' basic messages. And even worse: they all seem to tend in one specific direction with regards to content. They obliterate the correlation of the depicted events in comparison with the original statements of the cited sources. The proposals simply removed main messages of the sources which are closely linked to the subject of the chapter. Under such expectations it's difficult to work properly for the free encyclopedia. How can you expect that I remove main content without any substitution, such as "heavy" (toll on civilians), "intense pressure from Saudi Arabia and its coalition partner", "made no reference to any independent, international inquiry", "issued by the government of President Hadi" or "UN mission", when they are part of the sources' main messages? I think, I saw another user working this way in this (Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen) and related articles before, citing sources, but arbitrary changing their statements and even inventing own figures and terms, that had no origin in the cited sources' information. What you proposed here, is in my assessment able to encourage bad work on sources, rather then serving copyright interests. I know now, that I've to find a different expression for nearly every single word I'm reading in the sources. The main result of this might not serve copyright, but hamper the correct enyclopedic work here, but no problem: we'll deal with it, too. I don't think, you'll get actual reasons to complain for copyright reasons.
As already mentioned: according to your previous post (diff) I'll respond some later. So far thanks for your efforts. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was posting the message below at the same time as you added this post. I haven't read it yet and will respond more fully later. Just a couple of quick notes: Yes, you are expected to re-write in your own words absolutely everything that you add to this encyclopedia (other than short quotations, which can be added if absolutely necessary); and secondly, our obligation to obey copyright law holds true regardless of whether or not we believe we will get caught. — Diannaa (talk) — Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, this was coincidence, I'll respond to your post below soon. About the post above: I did not ask whether you expect me to "re-write" in my own words. I asked you whether you really expect me to remove without any substitution parts of the main messages. This was, what your proposal wordings did. They did not re-word only but removed substantial content od the sources that were in close relationship to the chapter. I repeat my question since you misunderstood it: do you expect me to remove those contents as you did it in your proposals? According to re-wording I will be very carefully. Don't worry about that. But you did not answer to the important passages you removed without any substitution ans without giving any reasons. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I did not reply in full to your post was because I had not read your post in full, because I had to go out (That's why I said above "I haven't read it yet"). Regarding your critique of my suggested wordings, It's inappropriate for me to get involved in making content decisions on the article. I merely provided, as requested, some suggested wordings as examples that are not copyright violations, in an attempt to teach you how to do it yourself. — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, no problem then. Thanks for clarifying that point. Indeed, your suggested wordings showed that you did not use the sources carefully and in adequate manner. Thanks for that attempt anyway. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As already announced I prepared a response to your previous post (diff). Here it is:

Thanks for your quick response again. Thanks also for citing the source of procedure or algorhitm you were using to identify "copyright violations" as you did above in your markings (diff). This might be the key and reason for some serious misunderstandings between us. I already noticed before that you possibly were using a non-specific algorhitm mechanically with only limited manual cross-checking of its plausibility and adequacy. Only this could explain, why you were marking names, indirect speech, time data and similar copyright non-critical information. Examing your results it seems for me we have both to learn:

  • My possible mistake (in the past, not in the edit following to your first warning) could be that I did not re-word passages strong enough. In my opinion you are right with this claim and I will change and improve that.
  • Your possible mistake (even following to your first warning) could be that you did not use the copyright violations detection procedure in a scientific and skilled way. It's okay when laymen use such a tool to search for possible copyright violations, but if one wants to use his "findings" in order to warn a WP user with view of a resulting blocking from WP collaboration, of course he has to use such tools in a professional and adequate way. These algorhithms are only a tool to help detect copyright violations. They show "possible" copyright violations, not more. They explicitly don't deliver copyright violation results. In case you misinterpreted the results of the algorithm, you'd have to understand the difference and to learn to use the tool in a appropriate manner. Another part of this problem is, that you only compared one source with the whole text. Many wordings can stam from several (that means: other) cited sources. The algorithm you were using, did not check this at all and it seems you did not countercheck this possibility.

I'll try to show you what keeps left from your "copyright violation" claims with regard to my edit (diff) you were referring to (diff) for your second warning, when it is manually counterchecked:

1.) indirect speech is a legal (copyright non-critical) and usual journalistic and encyclopedic method to cite direct (oral) speech of primary sources, cited in secondary sources.
In our case: The whole passage you removed as alleged "copyright content copied from http://www.msf.org/article/yemen-health-facilities-under-attack-msf-wants-answers" (diff) from my edit in the article, is composed of indirect speech of a NGO agent (Raquel Ayora, MSF Director of Operations), which was literally quoted in the cited source (msf.org). You removal from the article was not justified, since there is no "copyright content" removed and even no re-wording necessary.
2.) Names or common labels of persons, official functions or institutions as well as their abbreviations: many of your markings refer to terms like "Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)", "MSF", "MSF hospital", "MSF mobile clinic", "MSF staff members", "Saudi-led coalition".
3.) Names or concise descriptions of locations and statements of places: "in Yemen", "Haydan district", "Sa'dah Governorate", "Al Houban district"
4.) time designation: "on December 2", "on 26 October", "In less than three months"
5.) numerical data: "wounding eight people, including two (...)", "killing one", "four times"
6.) trivial descriptions: You even marked "airstrike" or "nearby" as copyright critical.
7.) indirect speech of quotations: "Raquel Ayora, MSF Director of Operations, said, that attacks on medical facilities were increasingly being minimised, being labelled ‘mistakes’ or ‘errors’. She criticised, that the UK Foreign Secretary claimed that there had been no deliberate breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen by Saudi Arabia (...)"
- Some of these points (point 2-7) could constitute copyright violations, when they were - to a sufficient scale - put in the exact or very similar way as given in a source. But most of this information is given in a trivial context, that has not to - or even cannot - be re-worded to an unlimited scale.
- Another point is, how you used one of my edits (diff), which strongly improved the article by using and considering a second source. Nevertheless you claimed, that this was constituting a second copyright violation (that means: the first after your first warning). You did not mention, that the edit tried (successfully) to redact the concerned text in order to reduce the proximity to one specific source. According to Earwig's Copyvio Detector the edit reduced the “Violation Suspected” rate from 92.7% (see test) down to (see test of the same, but revised passage) 49.2%. For comparison: your own modification of the same passage (diff) later reduced the rate from 49,2% to see test) to 47.1%. To sum it up: You used my edit (which in fact reduced the passage’s rate of “possible violation” from 92.7% to only 49.2%) to show me that I am violating copyrights with your edit, which reduced the rate from 49.2% to 47.1%?
Maybe it could be useful to highlight in bold the material that is in fact possibly left copyright critical in both the source webpage and my addition (after a manual contercheck as described above):
Source page http://www.msf.org/article/yemen-health-facilities-under-attack-msf-wants-answers:

MSF medical activities in Yemen have come under attack four times in less than three months, each incident more serious than the last. The first took place on 26 October, when fighter jets from the Saudi-led coalition repeatedly bombed a hospital in Haydan district, Saada Province. An MSF mobile clinic was then hit by an airstrike on 2 December in Taiz’s Al Houban district, wounding eight people including two MSF staff and killing one person nearby. MSF has yet to receive any official explanation for any of these incidents. “Increasingly, we are seeing attacks on medical facilities being minimised, being labelled ‘mistakes’ or ‘errors’,” says Ayora. “Just last week the UK Foreign Secretary claimed that there have been no deliberate breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This implies that mistakenly bombing a protected hospital would be tolerable. This logic is offensive and irresponsible.”

Your addition:

In less than three months Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) medical activities in Yemen came under attack four times. The first took place on 26 October, 2015, when fighter jets from the Saudi-led coalition repeatedly - HRW documented six Saudi-led airstrikes - bombed a MSF hospital in Haydan district (Sa'dah Governorate), wounding two patients. An Saudi-led coalition airstrike then hit a MSF mobile clinic on December 2, 2015, in Al Houban district (Taizz), wounding eight people, including two MSF staff members, and killing one other civilian nearby. MSF said on January 25 that it had not received any official explanation for any of these incidents. Raquel Ayora, MSF Director of Operations, said, that attacks on medical facilities were Increasingly being minimised, being labelled ‘mistakes’ or ‘errors’. She criticised, that the UK Foreign Secretary claimed that there had been no deliberate breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen by Saudi Arabia and said: "This implies that mistakenly bombing a protected hospital would be tolerable. This logic is offensive and irresponsible."

Most of the content highlighted by you was indirect speech of quotations only. Much of the rest is trivial expressions. Some few like "medical activities", "The first took place", "when fighter jets from the Saudi-led coalition repeatedly" probably should have been re-worded before posting them. But altogether it seems to be a quite inadequately opinion to call this "copyright violation". I'd like to hear your response to this. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23 February

[edit]

This version of your Draft sandbox has an overlap of over 92% with the source webpage. Your editing reduced the overlap down to 49%, which is still unacceptable. It may not be obvious, so I will say it to you plainly: adding copyright material to any Wikipedia page, including sandboxes and talk pages, is unacceptable. Any content added here has to already be re-written so that it complies with copyright law. — Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - if it's not okay to post such content there, I won't do it - I've got no objections against that. One learns quick when taught that way. But I've got some notes and some questions to clarify this, since there could exist some discrepancies:
  • Note 1: I first asked you (diff) before, whether it's okay to post unchecked content on my talk page. You agreed, saying it would be better if I pasted it into my sandbox, where we can later delete it if need be (diff).
  • Note 2: Then I posted the unchecked proposal content on my draft subpage (diff1, diff2), subsequently informing you about it (diff)
  • Note 3: Then you pasted my proposed text into your sandbox (diff) and informed me (diff), that you made (this test) using Earwig's Copyvio Detector and got an 52.2% overlap (with the globalpost source).
  • Note 4: What you now were referring to above, were two edits in my draft subpage (diff1, diff2), where I posted the content of two old article versions (article Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen), in order to test them with Earwig's Copyvio Detector in the same way you showed me before with your sandbox. The results were test 1 with 92.7% (tested with HRW source) and test2 with 49.2% (tested with HRW source).
  • Note 5: What you did not mention above, but what is very interesting for you with respect to your copyright violation claims, is, that I posted a third and last content on my draft subpage (diff). This was what you edited and posted in the article itself (diff). That means I tested your own article version with Earwig's Copyvio Detector (test3) and got an overlap of 47.1%. Confer and note: your own edit reduced the version's overlap by only 2% (tested with HRW source), whereas my former edit ((diff)) already had reduced the overlap by more than 52% (tested with HRW source). But nevertheless you had used this very edit of mine (that had reduced the overlap by over 52%) to warn me a second time for violating copyright (diff) after already being warned by you.
  • Question 1: How can unchecked passages been tested with help of Earwig's Copyvio Detector without pasting content in WP-pages such as sandboxes or user subpages?
  • Question 2: Why did you show me how to use Earwig's Copyvio Detector by pasting content into the sandbox to test it for overlap? Am I allowed to test unchecked content that way or not?
  • Question 3: Why did you say we can delete the content of my sandbox if needed? Can I delete the content afterwards or is it not possible to use the sandbox or subpages for such purpose?
  • Question 4: What do you mean with an overlap of 49% in a sandbox or user subpage is still unacceptable when your own edit (diff) even in the article Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (not only in the sandbox) shows an overlap of 47.1% using the same method?
  • Note 6: For the way you used Earwig's Copyvio Detector, I will respond in a later post. It has to be examined, whether you used the Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool in an unprofesional and non-arbitrary manner, in order to make allegations of copyright violations. I think, I can show very clearly that your allegations (after your first warning) are not justified. I admit, that before your first warning there was a need for improval. I see it and I agree to avoid that in future.
  • Note 7: Until these questions are clarified I will halt my activities in en:WP. In case you should intend to proceed collecting very vague allegations of "copyright violations" I have to get a confirmation what you exactly understand under this term. When every concise expression (cf. (here (diff)) is checked with a unspecific algorithm as Earwig's Copyvio Detector, you'll get invalid results. And if you use that to warn a user of blocking him, something goes wrong here. As mentioned I will show in a comming post why that is and I'll suggest you a way, how you can proceed in properly. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said on February 22 that your English is limited, and this is why you found it difficult to impossible to paraphrase the source material. It has since become obvious from your articulate and detailed posts here on your talk page that your command of the English language is actually very good indeed. That's why I said not to post any more copyright material into sandboxes: It's become obvious that you don't actually need any help whatsoever with your English language skills. Any further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you I will halt my activities in en:WP until it is cleared what you understand, when you use the term "copyright violation" (at least in the articles). I'm happy you appreciate my English as "very good" even though I think you are flattering too much, so actually your compliment goes to dict.leo.org et al. But you misunderstood a crucial point: I never asked you for any help with my English skills. What I asked you was to help me understand what your idea of "copyright content" is. What I said on February 22, was: My English is limited and I know I've got deficits in paraphrasing and re-wording in English language. But there is a significant difference between violating copyright restrictions and using a suboptimal linguistic style. And as far as I can see you are using the Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool in a very inconsistent and unprofessional manner. For instance you made (as mentioned above) an own edit with a 47% (from 49% downwords) overlap result in the article, later calling my previous edit, which reduced the overlap from 92% down to 49% "copyright" as is still unacceptable in terms of copyright.
It's worth to examine the list of your "copyright content" alleging edits:
It shows you are not using the term "copyright violations", but "copyright content". And indeed many of these edits show a pretty loose usage of this term, if the sources and statements are compared in detail. I will watch your activity with regard to the way your are "paraphrasing" the articles content. I also will watch what kind of content you are removing. In order to improve the article I will present the results and suggestions on the article's talk page. Of course without "violating" copyright. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of your prose additions to this article are copyright violations, because the material was copied directly from the source webpage with little or no alteration. That's why they have to be removed. (In some instances I am paraphrasing instead.) Direct quotations need to be placed in quotation marks. The material I removed in this diff is not in quotation marks. That's why it's a copyright violation; the reader has no way of knowing you did not write that prose unless it's in quotation marks. If you need more information on what is considered a copyright violation on this wiki, please consult the policy page at Wikipedia:Copyrights. — Diannaa (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, I'll watch and wait, what comes out here. The way you work is more than interesting indeed. Don't hesitate to ask me, if you don't understand the meaning of indirect speech and the sources' content. It seems, you could have had some problems with it. I'm here to help you when needed. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa and Me - Agenda *** (draft)

[edit]

Folgende Arbeitsfassung erscheint in deutscher Sprache, da ich in dieser Sprache am schnellsten und am präzisesten in der Lage bin, eine Analyse durchzuführen.

Es handelt sich im Kern um eine Auflistung der getätigten Artikelbearbeitungen (Textmodifikationen und Textentfernungen) von User:Diannaa, die mit der Begründung, copyright content zu behandeln, durchgeführt wurden. Die Auflistung dient der Untersuchung und Analyse dieser Bearbeitungen. Es ist zu prüfen, ob und wenn, in wieweit, diese Bearbeitungen tatsächlich "copyright content" behandelt haben und ob und wenn, welcher Art andere Bearbeitungen zugrundeliegen. Spätestens ab dem 25. Februar 2016 wurde zeitnah (umgehend) die Artikelversionsgeschichte zu diesen Bearbeitungen entfernt (Stand: 25. Februar 2016: rückwirkend bis "16:12, 10 May 2015‎", also dem Beginn meiner umfassenden Überarbeitung des Artikels). Durch die Löschung der Versionsgeschichte kann für Benutzer ohne entsprechende Administratorrechte nur noch der Umfang in Speicherplatzverbrauch (und anhand der Versionskommentare) ermessen werden, während die Qualität der Berbeitungen (Artikelinhalt im Wortlaut und in fachlicher Qualität samt Quellennachweisen) nicht mehr einsehbar sind. Damit ist gleichzeitig Benutzern ohne entsprechende Administratorrechte nicht mehr möglich, mögliche Falschangaben und Regelverstösse von User:Diannaa einzusehen. Die Fortführung dieser Arbeitsfassung erfüllt dennoch ihren Sinn, da mir ein ursprünglicher Artikeltext weiterhin vorliegt und so einen (mit dem Vorbehalt, auf eine bestimmte Artikelversion als Vergleichswert begrenzt zu sein) Abgleich der Ursprungstexte mit der Bearbeitung von User:Diannaa erlaubt. Dass durch die Entfernung der Artikelhistorie (z.B. nach RD1 unter Einsatz des Kriteriums "Blatant copyright violations") ein erheblicher Copyrights- und Regelverstoss vorliegen kann, der nun die umfangreiche Artikelbearbeitung als Werk von User:Diannaa erscheinen lässt, ist ein weiterer Aspekt, der insbesondere dann zum Tragen kommt, wenn eine fehlende Stichhaltigkeit der Copyrightverletzung-Vorwürfe von User:Diannaa gegen meinen Account besteht.

  • diff (04:25, 24 February 2016):
noch nicht bearbeitet (N): Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen: (214 edits, 110 major, +7087) (+263)(+410)(+1363)(-137)(+162)(+790)(-6)(0)(+15)(+1504)(0)(0)(+191)(+751)(-1)(+7)(+216)(0)(-23)(+893)(+694)(+10)(-5)(+458)(+275)(+430)(-3)(+604)(+395)(+567)(-201)(-155)(-22)(+33)(+1)(+1)(+31)(+3427)(-6)(+307)(+793)(+5)(+20)(+871)(+4)(+2058)(-1)(+528)(+4944)(0)(+308)(+155)(+1)(+767)(+563)(+290)(-43)(0)(0)(+1120)(+5)(+1)(+77)(+18)(+208)(+138)(+2344)(+570)(+171)(+21)(+1209)(+38)(+1948)(+38)(+30)(0)(-17)(+211)(+2739)(-1)(+5937)(-1)(+8)(+253)(+698)(+1490)(0)(+1)(+45)(+492)(+402)(+1153)(+641)(0)(+3)(+793)(+6)(+1811)(+5)(+556)(+1792)(-4)(-40)(+1216)(+15)(+1629)(+55)(-12)(+521)(+2073)(+2)(-110)(+62)(+1148)(+303)(-47)(+1278)(-61)(+195)(+1273)(+440)(+180)(+2839)(+2)(+625)(+8)(+8)(+4)(+753)(+1387)(+6)(+2)(+2001)(+815)(+1059)(+813)(+1023)(+1498)(+1275)(+1)(+795)(+1)(-723)(+1434)(+2165)(-5)(-1)(+16)(+3)(+7087)(-648)(+5790)(+82)(+363)(+1)(-5)(+1051)(+30)(+1)(+339)(+11)(+419)(+555)(+481)(-4)(+2607)(+752)(+353)(-353)(+1367)(-4)(+67)(+431)(+184)(+125)(+414)(+233)(+674)(+2)(0)(+1729)(+3)(+191)(+1150)(+54)(-6)(+29)(+3498)(+8)(+4708)(0)(+872)(+2)(+1975)(+646)(+1131)(+445)(+74)(+1843)(-356666)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(+653)(-2)(+1099)(+664)(-2)(+523)(+498)(+1829)(+917)
  • diff (05:02, 24 February 2016): bearbeitet:
(+263)(+410)(+1363)(-137)(+162)(+790)(-6)(0)(+15)(+1504)(0)(0)(+191)(+751)(-1)(+7)(+216)(0)(-23)(+893)(+694)(+10)(-5)(+458)(+275)(+430)(-3)
  • diff (05:33, 24 February 2016): bearbeitet:
(-356666)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)
  • diff (08:24, 24 February 2016): bearbeitet:
(+604)(+395)(+567)(-201)(-155)(-22)(+33)(+1)(+1)(+31)(+3427)(-6)(+307)(+793)(+5)(+20)(+871)(+4)(+2058)(-1)(+528)(+4944)(0)(+308)(+155)(+1)(+767)(+563)(+290)(-43)(0)(0)(+1120)(+5)(+1)(+77)(+18)(+208)(+138)(+2344)(+570)(+171)(+21)
  • diff (08:48, 24 February 2016): bearbeitet:
(+1209)(+38)(+1948)(+38)(+30)(0)(-17)(+211)(+2739)(-1)(+5937)(-1)(+8)(+253)
  • diff (15:03, 24 February 2016): bearbeitet:
(+698)(+1490)(0)(+1)(+45)(+492)(+402)(+1153)(+641)(0)(+3)(+793)(+6)(+1811)(+5)(+556)(+1792)(-4)(-40)(+1216)(+15)(+1629)(+55)(-12)(+521)(+2073)
  • diff (00:33, 25 February 2016): bearbeitet:
(+2)(-110)(+62)(+1148)(+303)(-47)(+1278)(-61)(+195)(+1273)(+440)(+180)(+2839)(+2)(+625)(+8)(+8)(+4)(+753)(+1387)(+6)(+2)(+2001)(+815)(+1059)(+813)(+1023)(+1498)(+1275)(+1)(+795)(+1)(-723)(+1434)(+2165)(-5)(-1)(+16)(+3)(+7087)(-648)(+5790)(+82)(+363)(+1)(-5)(+1051)(+30)(+1)(+339)(+11)(+419)(+555)(+481)(-4)(+2607)(+752)(+353)(-353)(+1367)(-4)(+67)(+431)(+184)(+125)(+414)(+233)(+674)(+2)(0)(+1729)(+3)(+191)(+1150)(+54)(-6)(+29)(+3498)(+8)(+4708)(0)(+872)(+2)'(+74)'(-2)'(-2)
  • diff (01:17, 25 February 2016): bearbeitet:
(+1975)(+646)(+1131)(+445)(+1843)(+653)(+1099)(+664)(+523)(+498)(+1829)(+917)

Web page citing tool

[edit]

Hey, may I ask which tool do you use to auto cite + archive the page and then post it in a ref tag?
I am using those tools at the moment which only supports auto cite:

  • "Chrome".
  • "FireFox".

YemArabSf (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use any tools, but only the template, adding each archive code manually (cf. Wikipedia:Using WebCite#Website form). So I create the archive by myself and then put it in the template. That means, every single citation is "written". According to auto cite functions, I even wasn't aware of their existence o: Thanks for the hint, YemArabSf! I'm afraid, there is pretty little you can learn from me so far ;) --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so you are more writing articles oriented :), have a look at this, it might add some species to your Wikipedia experience (in Firefox) "Wikipedia:Tools/Greasemonkey user scripts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Retrieved 2016-03-18. more: "Wikipedia:Tools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Retrieved 2016-03-18. there are more out there YemArabSf (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I've little time to check out timesaving tools since I'm busy with wasting time without using them :D No, seriously: thanks for the links. I'll try to dip into it on occasion. May I give you one advise according to the talk page chapter "Sources for new developments/news or still missing information", too? I'd recommend to avaoid assessments of incidents like "war crime", unless they have been conducted by an independent investigation, that is reported (and can be cited) by reliable sources. The more neutral and objective the wording, the more the chapter will be suitable to bundle the efforts of different WP editors, I think. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was just me pointing in which head title a new text entry should be used using the mentioned references either in "Reports of war crimes" and/or "Airstrike casualties". YemArabSf (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Sorry then. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki&oldid=990323771"