User talk:Cdoebbler

Dear John Z I am quite disappointed by the revisions to my edits of the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid page. The errors are false positives that appear intentional, but moreover the editor reintroduced legal errors into the page that provide wrong and misleading information to readers. It is foolish revisions like this that prompt most law professors to discourage or prohibit use of the Wikipedia by students as I will now be forced to do. This is particularly disappointing as I am taking up a professorship in Makeni Sierra Leone next year where students don't have significant access to adequate materials that explain international law in simple form. Now they won't have Wikipedia either as we will prohibit their access because of the poor quality of your materials. I would be happy to help, with a group of law professors, to review the legal material on Wikipedia that relates to international law, but the way you handle international law right now is largely disappointing. Professor Curtis FJ Doebbler 09:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Cdoebbler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Well, (belated) welcome to Wikipedia! I guess I have the honor of welcoming you, though I see you've been editing for over a year and probably hardly need the above links. I just happened to be taking a look at one of your books a couple days ago. Particularly glad to see you joined the International Law project. I am taking a wild guess, but I presume you are Professor Doebbler and am very happy to see a real international law expert here. (And more so one who has a "POV" I think congenial to my own! :-) ).John Z 09:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Cdoebbler! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Ahmad Khaldi - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Ali al-Sartawi - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 9 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid

I agree with you that the earlier version of the lead was quite misleading, and your version is an improvement in many respects. I had tinkered around with your edit a bit, removing some WP:OR, then LoveFerguson then finally reverted it entirely, (a decision which I don't agree with, but that is not relevant here). You have now restored your original edit. While you may or may not be an expert on the topic, please read WP:EXPERT. Wikipedia works by consensus, and experts have no more powers than non-experts here, though experts can of course add their perspective. Since I believe your edit was constructive, I will try to argue for adding a significant part of it. You are welcome to join the discussion on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]