User talk:Corriebertus

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Corriebertus, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sourness in non-Israeli citizens after criticism on Israeli politics

The article Sourness in non-Israeli citizens after criticism on Israeli politics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a venue for political commentary. Neutral point of view required, no original research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Geographica may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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:

| 44 || temple of [[Osiris]] in [[Abydos, Egypt)|Abydus]]; city of [[Dendera|Tentyra]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying. I fixed it. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Events in the Syrian uprising and civil war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rif Dimashq offensive (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) 11:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kofi Annan peace envoy for Syria, 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) 19:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian presidential election, 2014

Please look at the article Syrian presidential election, 2014. User:LibDutch, who I see you have had exactly the same problem with in the past, is persistently edit warring to remove reliable sources. He has recently removed as many as 4 references on the article and huge chunks of referenced information. Your help in seeing if the article is ok would be much appreciated. [That message was posted 7 June 2014, 13:18, by 94.197.120.141]

Message to editor of above posting: It seems, some disagreement(s) between LibDutch and one or several others started 6June2014,14:15 (or later) on Syrian presidential election, 2014? If you wish my opinion on this quarrel, please first give an outline of what the quarrel exactly is about (in your opinion), on the Talk page of that article. Perhaps I'll be able then to mediate or help otherwise. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sticking to "FACTS" with "reliable and verifiable" source

Goedemorgen ... Hoe gaat het?

The Islamic State is a 1RR article and I will have to wait 24 hours to revert what you did. What the Islamic State has done is a "systematic" genocide and an ongoing genocide let alone burying hundreds of women and children ALIVE and selling women as sex slaves on the 21st century. Please read the "reliable and verifiable" source I provided (The Washington Post) and restore my edit. This is a 1RR article. Thank you for acting in good faith. I appreciate it!...

1. As he made a statement on the Iraq crisis and U.S. decision to militarily intervene on Thursday, President Obama made two references to "genocide."

2. Obama, however, was unequivocal: "[Islamic State] forces have called for the systematic destruction of the entire Yazidi people, which would constitute genocide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/08/when-obama-talks-about-iraq-his-use-of-the-word-genocide-is-vital/

3. Al Jazeerah already referred to this as genocide: http://www.aljazeera.net/home/print/f6451603-4dff-4ca1-9c10-122741d17432/305d26aa-5eb9-4055-8356-ea5eaf1c1a23

4. HP/De Tijd also referred to this as genocide: http://www.hpdetijd.nl/2014-08-11/genocide-irak-een-volkerenoverzicht/

Worldedixor (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague Worldedixor, I appreciate your good work. On the other hand, we have the right, and are even obliged, to correct (minor) errors of colleagues, regardless whether those errors were made on purpose or by accident. Ofcourse I checked the (reliable) source referred to by you: AlJazeera 5Aug2014. Now, in your reaction here on my talk page, you mention some other source in Washington Post. Where have you referred to that source in the article? Not at the place (5Aug2014) where I checked and made my correction. So, if you kindly just put all relevant references immediately at the right places in articles, I and others perhaps don’t have to correct your entries or edits. I consider it quite possible that Obama, and perhaps also others, have used the term ‘genocide’ in regard to this event. In that case, we should write (with ofcourse a good reference source) that Obama called it so – which is not the same as that it is an indisputable fact. (Prematurely shaming or incriminating a group with the term ‘genocide’ in an encyclopedia doesn’t help to stop them doing what they’re doing – more likely it will incite them to go on with those killings.) (And yes: a good morning to you too, compatriot. Nice fresh weather here, this morning, in the northeast of the Netherlands.) --Corriebertus (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC) P.S.: The situation in IS-territory looks totally horrifying to me. I watched BBC six o'clock News yesterday evening (the Dutch NOS-journaal can't be taken for a serious program, in recent years). But we shouldn't let our emotions get in the way of making a good encyclopedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS and United Nations

You may have already seen my message to you on the Talk page where I said I had removed the UN ref, but I have promptly been reverted! --P123ct1 (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've reacted on that. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS Talk page

I would ask you to bear in mind WP:Etiquette when commenting on the Talk page, please. As for not being interested in those groups, I spent time yesterday copy-editing the whole of the page on Yezidi persecution by the IS and was thanked for it. I also refer you to my comment in "Serious discussion" on the ISIS Talk page. Please be wary when criticising. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous and annoying and insulting and cowardly. Mr P123 insinuates me being not “wary” and not following the Principles of Wikipedia etiquette when commenting or criticizing on Talk pages, but hasn’t the guts to speak his mind and tell me where I went wrong in his opinion. (Read, on this issue, also my recent posting today(11:06), under Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#A serious discussion.) --Corriebertus (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hello. I see that you've edited the redirect Supreme Military Council (Syria), but I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of the edit was. If you wish to delete the redirect, please bring it up at WP:RFD. If it was for something else, I've reverted the edit for now. KJ^Discuss? 13:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Front. 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) 09:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS Talk page (2)

I have been linking related discussions on the Talk page and have removed some of your wording at the beginning of the section you started, "Talk page too long (318,000)". I removed the reference you gave for the earlier discussion, as the title now shows that reference in the form of a blue link. If you click on the blue link, it goes straight to the previous discussion. I hope you don't mind, and by all means, if you would like me to restore your wording, of course I will do that. Regards, P123ct1 (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, I made a pig's breakfast of the headings! I've sorted it out and the links are cleaner now. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. By the way: you proposed on 28 October: "...a second TOC, placed at the top of the Talk page, after the regular TOC, which includes the discussions in the current Talk page and the last archived Talk page, placed side by side? (perhaps in smaller print to accommodate page width.) It could be made collapsible so that it does not take up space...". I reacted the same day that that would seem to me a good idea (to have the TOC of the latest archive extra on top of the actual talk page). Have you changed your mind about it? --Corriebertus (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it would be a very good idea. It could be made collapsible, so that it doesn't intrude. Do you think we should press for this? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts: do what you like, but I'm not sure it would help a lot for whatever goal or purpose. (Perhaps all of us can use our time better at many other chores within Wikipedia.) If you really want, go ahead, but I preserve all my rights to either approve, disapprove, or be indifferent about your (eventual) project. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALKCOND

For talk page size guidance see WP:TALKCOND -- PBS (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manually archived pages

Please do not manually archive pages as you did here, for all the reasons previously discussed. The reason it had not been archived was because of an edit made by Gregkaye at 08:22 on 31 October 2014 to the section. The other section you archived had not been archived by the bot because it had a subsection called "Suggest trimming nation names" in which the last edit was by P123ct1 at 09:40 on 28 October 2014. -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I understand your point. If I had seen that late edit of Greg on 31 Oct, I would not have archived it. However: why do people make such discussions so totally chaotic and unfathomable (and unreadable) like that discussion Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 14#Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox? The other incident, with "Suggest trimming...", was no mistake, because I left that discussion on the Talk page after promoting it from a sub-section into a real section--what it really should have been from the beginning. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS edit – Zumar

Zumar is in Nineveh province, Iraq, not the Kurdish autonomous region. It is right on the border. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a bit of a hurry now--I will get back on this later, perhaps today, if I find the time (and don't forget). --Corriebertus (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, firstly, for bringing to my attention my mistake. However, my mistake was even bigger than you assumed: all three towns Z, Sinjar and Wana are NOT in Iraqi Kurdistan--which we can read from the map in the referred source. I've therefore further corrected that mistake (in two articles). --Corriebertus (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My (wrong) edit said that Sinjar was in Kurdistan as I was following the wiki article Sinjar, which says, "Sinjar ... is a town in Iraqi Kurdistan's Ninawa Governorate". I see now that is incorrect. Ninawa(Nineveh) province is in northern Iraq and I now see that Sinjar is listed as a town in that province in the wiki article Nineveh province. There is a footnote in the Sinjar article which might help, but it is a dead link, and I cannot retrieve the source from archive.org (the usual way to mend dead links). I will edit out "Kurdistan" from the Sinjar article. What a muddle. In The New York Times map the three towns are clearly not in Kurdistan, as you say. Do you think we could safely drop the words "near the autonomous region of Iraq Kurdistan" from this passage, as none of those towns are in Kurdistan? I am not sure if it was you who originally made that edit or somebody else. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase: "...near the autonomous region of Iraq Kurdistan" has been used by me several times, lately, and that still seems to be a correct phrase. The towns being NOT IN Iraqi Kurdistan seems not immediately a logical reason to scrap the phrase "...NEAR Iraqi Kurdistan". Perhaps you have other reasons to scrap that phrase, but while you don't reveal those reasons to me, I can't judge those reasons. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If those towns aren't in Kurdistan, why even mention Kurdistan was my reasoning. It didn't seem relevant. "... in northern Iraq" seemed enough. That was all. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerics executed...

Can I ask, is there a special reason why your edit in ISIS has "reportedly" in the sentence about the Islamic clerics killed by ISIL? I may have missed something in the citation, but it seems the UN reported this, who clearly are a reliable source. Is there some doubt about this? "Reportedly" has the connotation that there is some doubt about what is reported, and that is how the word has been used in the ISIS article elsewhere. I have not changed your edit, but if I don't hear from you on this I will adapt the wording slightly. By the way, thanks for spotting all those misplaced reports and putting them into the right sections; you have a good eye for detail. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for critically following my edits. In this case, I have to admit, I had glanced only rather superficially on the article of McClatchyDC. Now, reading it more closely, I notice that indeed it is the UN who claims, alleges, reports those executions. Remarkably, Clatchy does not reveal at all, how UN got that information ; that is suspicious, (because) that is not how really high-standard journalism usually works. Even the UN is not infallible -- and surely McClatchy is not infallible. But 'reportedly' has for me (in 'war articles' like this) not the connotation of extreme doubtfulness: after working about a year on the articles of Syrian Civil War I've learned to ALWAYS make explicit WHO claims or alleges some 'fact'. I propose, you adapt the wording, like for example: "the UN reports/(claims) that ... clerics ... have been executed (etc. etc.)". --Corriebertus (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Yes, I have learned about always giving attribution to reports, and there was once something on the ISIS Talk page about using "reportedly" for doubtful reports. I haven't been editing long (since Feb this year), so there is still a lot to learn. I mainly copy-edit, so always try to look at new entries; I am sure some editors think I am wikihounding! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq start date

I agree with your earlier assertion that the start date can be 5 August because on that date US military advisors were in place to help the Iraqi military directly. However I do not agree with the new date you stated (29 June). You cited sources that on that date US sent troops to Iraq. Per the sources themselves they sent troops to reinforce the already long-before present troops and secure US facilities and US citizens. The ones that were sent to the airport, per the sources, were sent there to secure a possible evacuation of US citizens from Iraq if needed. The sources do not state they were sent to directly intervene against ISIS's advances or prevent ISIS from conducting strategic conquests. And we already established, per the sources, that the only thing the US military did in Iraq in the next two months was to evaluate the state of the Iraqi Army and observe ISIS, nothing more. EkoGraf (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording of the lead so its more encyclopidic and more according to the sources because they don't call them the first, second or third type of intervention or even interventionS. Its established in the background section that before direct intervention with humanitarian aid, weapons supplies to the Kurds and air strikes in early August, the US was protecting its interests in the country (embassy, consulat, citizens, escape route). Per the sources, no mention of them getting directly involved in the conflict. After that in the section on the August intervention I established that it all started gradually over those three days first with the weapons supplies, humanitarian aid and advisory teams and than with air-strikes. EkoGraf (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, colleague. Yesterday I've worked and edited on pages 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq and Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. Your statements here(my talk page) seem largely or totally the same as some of your statements on those two pages. I suppose it is better to have and continue these debates on those two pages. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. 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) 00:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Deletions of Material

If you make an inaccurate edit like this again I will report you. Stop targeting my edits with your utter nonsense. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-airstrikes-targeted-isis-equipment-near-iraqi-dam-commander-1.2086650 Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lying (“Deletion of Material”), cursing (“what the hell is wrong with the editor who moved this”) and threatening (“I will report you”) seems to me not the tone and method to cooperate here. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were wrong, but so was my attitude. Sorry for that. If you see something plausible added by an active editor, but not sourced at the location, it is good practice to check the article and consider a quick web search for a source. Happy New Year. Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An edit that is in keeping with its also mentioned clear motivation is never "wrong". Refuting that given clear motivation can however give cause to improve the article by editing it again. It is not my responsibility every time I come across some unsourced assertion to go searching on Internet whether perhaps that unsourced statement is true after all.
'Plausible' is a subjective qualification: what is plausible for you in some article or context is not automatically also plausible for someone else--that, in fact, is the whole reason why man started to make encyclopediae, some three centuries ago. And, in the case of encyclopedia Wikipedia, the reason to source almost all our information. Anyway, thanks for your apology. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		for putting up with all sorts of shit DocumentError (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, that is very nice. Thank you very much. --Corriebertus (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mujahedeen Shura Council. 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) 09:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2013 in Iraq

I am working on many articles to source them. However, another place would be the current events portals for 2013. Jackninja5 (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cake and eat it

Corriebertus, You raised issue of summaries of content in the lead here but indicated that you had removed a lead text that was very representative of article content here. All this in less than 10 minutes. Please consider how this fits in with balanced editing practice. Greg Kaye 15:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. The two issues/edits you refer to are both about something in the lead section, but about totally different subjects in that lead.
The second link you make is to my comment: "That sentence in the lead (at the end of first paragraph) appeared to be not sourced: it was NOT being said in the given newspaper article... So I've removed that sentence", which the next discussant (Mbcap) agrees to.
Anyway, you are free to disagree with my edits or opinions, always. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Iraq offensive

I apologies about the Christians. I did not see it. Leaving that bit in and more useful info in. However, you are incorrect about some other things. First, those were not reactions, those were counter-attacks that were all part of the same continues operation/offensive that concluded with the breaking of the siege of Mount Sinjar and the repelling of the Tikrit assault on 19 August. Also, the day-by-day timeline is not encyclopedic (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia) or in line with standard Wikipedia styles and the date you inserted is also not the standard Wikipedia style (there's a proper dating system). The constant bolding of everything around the article and use of the break HTML is also not in line with Wikipedia's policy on bolding and breaking rows. Wikipedia is based on neutrality. I would ask that we go step by step about the changes to the text and see what can be a good contribution to the overall quality of the text. You made some good additions that can be used. What do you say? PS I did not make a full revert of your edits, in fact I did leave some useful informative parts in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EkoGraf. On 29 March, you rejected my updating edit with five arguments:

‘Reverting what is not in the sources’;
‘non-encycloidic timeline’;
‘it finished on the 19th (…)’ ;
’(…) with a partial ISIL victory’;
‘100,000 PEPLE were displaced from Ninevah province, not 100,000 Christians’.

We can forget now that 5th argument (‘Christians’). About arguments 2 and 3, you gave some explanation, which I’ll contradict here below, in four points. But also about your argument nr. 1 (‘not in the sources’) and 4 (‘victory’) I have questions, which follow here below as points 5 and 6:

A counter-attack in reaction on (1–15) August 2014 ISIL offensives is a (form of) reaction on that offensive. (Military) reactions on the (1–15) August 2014 ISIL offensive did not end though on 19 Aug 2014, they are still going on. If someone has decided to present the first beginnings of such reactions (up until 19Aug2014) in that article, I can accept that, but then that short presentation of reactions should contain wikilinks to the more complete presentations of such reactions (like: ‘Main article: American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present)’; ‘Main article: Sinjar massacre’; ‘See also: Battle for Mosul Dam)’.
But we should not take a date out of one (military) reaction-on-ISIL-offensives (e.g. 19Aug), and call that date mistakenly the end of ‘the ISIL(!) August offensive’.
If you have different ideas about how to present a day-by-day progressing of a military offensive, or of a ‘proper dating system’, in line with this or that ‘standard Wikipedia style’, I wouldn’t mind if you’d ‘improve’ my presentation – it doesn’t seem to me an argument to reverse an otherwise correct update.
You criticise my “constant bolding of everything”—in fact I only bolden the ten contested towns and Dam in this August offensive, and do that only once. I am still rather pleased with how that looks, but if you dislike it, you can remove them – it does again not seem to me an argument to reverse an otherwise correct update.
The same goes for my usage of “break HTML”. If you think I’ve used that too much, you can remove (some of) them.
Saying someone is fantasizing in a Wiki article, making things up that are not said in the sources, would be a grave accusation. Can you name one or two things in my attempted update of 27 March that are ‘not in the sources’?
I don’t see a sound reason for the usage of the term ‘victory’ in the article. I assume we are describing the “offensive” actions of ISIL in August 2014 in northern Iraq, like (successful) conquests, slaughterings, etc. If we do that clearly, what extra information would the term ‘victory’ then have to convey here? Is it suggesting a sports game taking place there? Or a war? I’m not aware of any ‘war’ being formally defined, in Iraq in that period, by Wikipedia, nor by anyone else.
But even if you’d manage now to define a ‘war’ at that time and place, I still don’t think I’d understand the idea of ‘partial victory’ in (any) war. You either win or lose a war, there’s no ‘half-winning’. As long as a war hasn’t reached that final point, you can win or lose battles in that war—but each battle you can only win or lose: ‘partially winning’ a battle seems to me a contradiction in terms. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. Only saw your message today.

1. ‘Reverting what is not in the sources’ - Was referring to the Christians (already apologised). PS I did not accuse you of fantasizing or making things up, but saying that I was and that I was making a grave accusation is not really per Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
2. ‘non-encycloidic timeline’ - See standard template established in most other battle articles. Historical encyclopedic form is needed. We only write in a timeline fashion when a battle/operation is no more than several days long, or at most a week (which is not the case here), and that is only in a few cases where we go into great detail about day-to-day events.
3. ‘it finished on the 19th (…)’ In most cases, military offensives/operations result in a counter-attack by the enemy, as was the case here (Kurdish/Iraqi/Coalition counter-attack), but it is still part of the same military event. The counter-attack stopped and didn't make any more progress for some time after they recaptured the Mosul dam and failed to recapture Tikrit. Thus, active combat operations as part of this military event ended by that time.
4. ’constant bolding of everything’ - For this issue read MOS: BOLD.
5. ’(…) with a partial ISIL victory’ - As described in the results section of the infobox, ISIL captured up to 10 locations as part of their offensive, but subsequently lost four of them in the following counter-attack, but still managed retain control of 6 (including Sinjar). Thus, they only managed to attain a partial victory (didn't accomplish all of their goals). Marking a military event as a partial victory is also used on occasion in Wiki battle articles when there is not a clear-cut victory. Your assertion that there is no war in Iraq (you are not aware of any war) is something that you would have to take up at the main Iraq conflict discussion page (where it was agreed years ago that current events in Iraq are a continuation of the previous US-led Iraq war). This was a military offensive conducted by ISIL. And the term victory is there, like in any Wiki battle article, to note the end result. And saying I was trying to imply successful slaughterings or that it was a sports game is not really in line with Wikipedia:Civility. EkoGraf (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My main worries about the old version of the article were:

Ambiguous use of the term ‘northern Iraq offensive’ (see below under ‘at Eko’s point 3’);
A presentation of the northern Iraq August offensive that, perhaps due to the ambiguous use of aforementioned term, was needlessly confused and confusing, by mixing-up the ISIL offensive with (some) reactions on that offensive;
At points incorrect, and at points incomplete, presentation of the ISIL offensive and its consequences.

My today’s update is meant to be again better than my attempted update of 27 March, but I don’t claim it to be perfect already. My reactions on the above given five arguments(12April) of EkoGraf are:

At Eko’s point 4 (‘bolding’): “The constant bolding of everything around the article” was exaggerated, as I said on 8 April. Nevertheless, in my new and improved update of today, I’ve removed many boldenings, and also reduced the use of “break” (HTML). If those things still bother EkoGraf, he can remove some more of them himself, with a short motivation. Such things I consider mere details, and suggesting (as Eko did) they can be reason enough te remove a serious updating edit I see as inappropriate.

At Eko’s point 3 (ending date): When I first encountered article ‘Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014)’ – possibly out of a reference in ‘American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present)’ – I assumed its title to refer quite simply to an ISIL August offensive in Iraq, because the summaries of it in articles such as ‘Am.-led intervention’ seemed to suggest as much, and also the lead of ‘Northern offensive August’ seemed to say so.

EkoGraf however, in this discussion, seems to be doing vague, evasive, ambiguous about the meaning of the word(s) ‘northern Iraq offensive’ in the article. Either deliberately or unconsciously, he seems to be confusing the (correct) fact that almost every word can have different meanings in different contexts with the (incorrect) deduction that therefore the writer(s) of a certain encyclopedia lemma don’t have to choose and decide which meaning one specific word or expression shall have in that one article (and are at liberty to jump back and forth between several meanings of that one word or expression in the article, letting it have one meaning in one paragraph, and again another meaning in another paragraph, of that same article).

No: to my conviction such ambiguity is strictly out of bounds and forbidden in a Wikipedia article. Our purpose is to give clarity to our readers, not to furnish them with vagueness or confusion or ambiguity. In this article, we may not be vague or ambiguous about the meaning of the crucial term ‘northern Iraq offensive’.

EkoGraf seems trying to be ambiguous about the meaning of ‘northern Iraq offensive’ in this article. On the one hand he suggests in his posting here on 12 April, three times, that indeed it might well refer to that “ISIL conducting a military offensive” in August 2014. On the other hand he suggested in his posting here on 30 March that the title words of the article refer to a series of (military) operations between 1 and 19 August from ISIL and from others, which suggestion he repeated twice in his posting of 12 April. But that second meaning seems not obvious here; it would immediately contradict the first sentence of the article; and it would be an arbitrarily chosen, uncorroborated (as I find no reference sources labeling those 19 days as some clear-cut ‘offensive’) meaning.

Forcing that second meaning of the phrase ‘northern Iraq offensive’ as its only meaning upon this article would be arbitrary, would require rewriting the article (especially the lead) to strip it from inconsistencies, and is not useful (except perhaps for some of EkoGraf’s private ambitions). The (military) reactions on the 1–15 August ISIL offensive can simply, without difficulties, be presented in this article as what they are: (military) reactions on the ISIL offensive.

At Eko’s point 5 ( ‘partial victory’): Eko’s reasoning here, that leads to the usage of the term ‘(partial) victory’, seems to depend (heavily) on the idea that ‘the northern offensive’ as meant by this article lasted until 19 August – idea that I’ve argued above under ‘at Eko’s point 3’ to be a misconception. The reasoning also builds on the assumption that ISIL “didn’t accomplish all of their goals” in or with their August offensive. Do we have information about those goals? I haven’t seen them, in this article. As I said on 8 April: I can’t see the term ‘(partial) victory’ adding correct information to the article that isn’t already mentioned.

At Eko’s point 2 ( section 2, ISIL conquests): EkoGraf seemed vaguely displeased with the presentation in section 2 in the update attempt of 27 March. But the fact that he, and perhaps others, would here or elsewhere perhaps not have chosen to use timeline fashion does not automatically mean that it is forbidden for someone else to do so. Eko, and anybody, may ofcourse ‘improve’ this section further; but I’d advise them to do that with good, clear and valid arguments.

At Eko’s point 1: see my comment at User talk:EkoGraf/Archive2018 1#No lies, please. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you anymore because obviously there is no point and you are unwilling to compromise or disregard my opinions which I made clear. EkoGraf (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t oblige anyone to discuss or argue. In fact, we don’t even oblige anyone to work on Wikipedia. On the other hand: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means that disagreements can arise. To solve disagreements we have only one method: discussing and arguing. If people decide not to participate in some running discussion on some issue, they may be considered as to resign themselves to the conclusions reached by the discussants who do take part in the discussion. If someone for a while takes part in such a discussion and then suddenly stops contributing his viewpoints etc., he also may be considered as to acquiesce (for the time being) in the conclusions reached so far on that issue by those discussing. Even if the discussion involves only two discussants, these rules apply just the same. (For my reaction on Eko’s reproofs towards me: see User talk:EkoGraf/Archive2018 1#“Disregarding your opinions”?). --Corriebertus (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinjar massacre

That article was originally created to cover the battle of Sinjar and the subsequent siege of Mount Sinjar. As a compromise the title was changed to Sinjar massacre. The killings of the Yazidis continued during the siege of the mountain until it was broken on 14 August. And also, for the second time, please use the proper Wikipedia dating system. EkoGraf (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Corriebertus. You have new messages at Talk:Nineveh Governorate#Error (inconsistency) between the two depicted maps.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL article

I saw that you made recent contributions to the Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL article and wanted you to double check my edits if you would like. I wanted to make sure that a section I created and some edits to the infobox were correct.--ZiaLater (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer on User talk:ZiaLater#Persec. Yazidis. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partially besieged

Its clearly stated in the source [1]. Quote - The five-day-long offensive began as an effort to break a partial Islamic State siege of a mountain range north of Sinjar. EkoGraf (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Al Jazeera source was obviously incorrect since you have dozens of sources confirming the first siege was broken mid-August, but than the second came in October. Per WP policy, multiple sources trump one source. As for the expression (partial siege), it is not up to us to debate the meaning of an expression in our own views, we write per the sources. However, in my personal opinion and view of what a partial siege is, in this case, I feel it was probably referring to the Yazidis being surrounded on three sides, but still had one route open on the fourth side of the mountain. And to me, that's a partial siege. But again, that's my personal opinion, just like you have yours, but we write per what's in the sources. PS The expression has been used by many, google it if you will. EkoGraf (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[ Above standing two answers of EkoGraf came after two questions of mine, 13 and 16 April, on this page, where I’ve also placed now my new reaction. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ][reply]

Proxy War Edit

I saw you've looked into the proxy war article. I didn't like it either, and have come up with an edit for it. You can find it here. What do you think of it? Compassionate727 (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your last message

When I said for example I was referring to an example of the three different things I was reverting, not an example of what is or is not in the sources specifically. not in the sources, non-encycloidic timeline and it finished on the 19th with a partial ISIL victory. I could have as well given an example of the non-encyclopedic timeline. English is not my primary language, the way I said it in the spirit of my language it is not meant to imply any multiple things not in the sources (except for the part about the Christians). If English is your primary language and you thought it implied it than that's not my fault. Your accusation of me lying (which is really ridiculous) and you nitpicking every word a fellow editor says is not in line with WP policy on Good faith (which I reminded you several times) and is highly offensive (read WP: Civil). I have no reason to lie you, a person I don't know and have never met, about a thing that does not impact my general life in any way. EkoGraf (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the so maniest time, you suggested me to have been uncivil. I’m not eager to hear you suggest that for the fourth or the sixth time. I have – in your latest case – not been uncivil, just arguing. Perhaps you tend to take an argument as an offense. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinjar offensive; Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014) and Sinjar massacre

1. In regards to the Sinjar offensive, I have only one objection to your edits at this article (the rest is clean-up). Again the same one. Here [2]. Sources clearly say [3][4][5][6] they broke a siege. Your personal interpretation of what a siege is does not count if that's what reliable sources call it (and you cann't call them all US government propaganda). A new siege had already been instituted since October of that year per the sources [7][8].
2. As for Northern Iraq, those are not simply reactions, they launched a counter-attack in an attempt to reclaim those areas, so its still part of the same military event. Every military operation/offensive/campaign does not include only advances by one side but counter-attacks by the other side as well.
3. The 5,000 killings in Sinjar and how I know that they only took place there... All of the places listed as examples in the report for the 5,000 are in the Sinjar area and also there were no other reported killings of Yazidis outside that area at that time. Also, the two main population centers for the Yazidis in Iraq are the Sinjar and Ain Sifni areas. There were no reported killings at Ain Sifni.
4. Finally, I wrote the different accounts of how the Kurds broke the first siege so the text flow can be more encyclopedic. Constantly saying this guy claimed this and that guy claimed that is non-encyclopedic. User Light agreed with me on this issue. EkoGraf (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: all of these discussions started in this section by EkoGraf are off-topic on this talk page. See my reaction on that ill-placing of discussions, on: User talk:EkoGraf/Archive2018 1#Misplaced attempts-at-discussion on my Talk page. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing off-topic, everything in response to your edits and discussions started at each of those respective talk pages, and I also left almost the same messages at each of those respective talk pages. Messages left both there and here in attempt at further discussion per WP policy. There is no rule to forbid discussing issues about certain articles at editor talk pages. That's actually why our talk pages also exist in addition to article talk pages. Your prerogative if you want to ignore and remove this section. EkoGraf (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with EkoGraf here. Wikipedia:User pages says: such pages are: "...for communication and collaboration. (...) They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes (...)", so that's why personal talk pages exist. Talk pages on articles however are to discuss pure content issues of the articles. What "WP policy" are you alluding at now? I refuse to needlessly discuss pure article-content-issues on this personal page with you, because we've been having a great lot of discussions on many pages where we often seem to talk past each other, seem not to (want to?) understand the other. A good reason, I believe, to furtheron have our content discussions only in the open, in public, to give outsiders better chances to see (and correct?) what is being said and done between the two of us. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background to the discussion at WT:Civility

The conversation that took place at Talk:Sinjar massacre# Evacuation of Yazidis (from mt. Sinjar) and User talk:EkoGraf# “A violation of WP policy on civility”? shows how this sort of thing is better handled, rather than trying to write everything into the policy page.

You used the word "gibberish" to describe another user's edit.
The other editor pointed out that this (in their opinion) violated WT:Civility.
You said you were sorry for any unintended offence and
pointed to cultural or linguistic issues, namely that you are a native Dutch speaker, and the equivalent word that you rendered in English as "gibberish" was wartaal, the implied argument being that a Dutch person would not find this offensive.

That should be the end of the story. --Boson (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 September

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 Turkey–ISIL conflict page, your edit caused an unnamed 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, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page re-created after merge!

Page Russian-led intervention in Syria recreated after merge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.80.196 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Article Russian-led intervention in Syria created (18:25 UTC) by another user before merging of Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War (19:03 UTC). 178.95.188.170 (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handelsblad link

Would you mind providing a link to this reference [9]. Or at least, the original title of the article in question, pls.Axxxion (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have managed it myself.Axxxion (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. Good work by you. Is that a free page or did you have to pay? --Corriebertus (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was free from where I accessed it. I think it sometimes depends on the region from which one accesses. Also the FT, for example, requires subscripton; but you can usually download it free, if you do it not from their web site but thru Google search.Axxxion (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks --Corriebertus (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

to have largely reverted your recent changes in "Background"; but i do believe it is early days for us to write this section in categorical terms of a history book, as too much is apparently not known yet and some of what we do "know" may turn out to be untrue.Axxxion (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LP accuses CB of personal attack

Hello, I'm Legacypac. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Syrian Civil War that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is Legacypac talking about? I only edited yesterday on Talk:Syrian Civil War, but that comment has not been removed. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[10], Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 39#Not a civil war, Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 38#Syrian Civil War: Title, Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 37#Still Civil War ?, Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 36#Is 'civil war' appropriate? (Retitling the article). These are just from the last 4 archive pages. Can you please drop the WP:STICK for now, and be more civil here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not actually remove your rude comments like the warning template suggests - But maybe I should have. I've fixed the template. Comment on how to improve the article, not on other editors. You have been warned. I also reversed the edit where you removed Knowledgekid's close of discussion and comments. It is considered quite inappropriate to do that. Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block. If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you, but if you continue acting inappropriately all this will become evidence. Legacypac (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry you don't agree with the "civil war" label, but please next time browse through the archives a bit before undoing. If you had pointed out something I had missed with the past consensus then bring it to my talk-page. There were a few things you could have done differently, I know from past experience though on how tempting it is to just revert an edit to which you don't agree on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve asked Knowledgekid87 on his talk page what his reproach here(6Jan,14:31) of me being uncivil is referring to. Also I’ve filed a complaint about Legacypac’s behaviour in this section, in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Legacypac’s persistent bullying. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87 refuses to explain his accusation here(6Jan2016) of incivility, which refusal in itself I consider uncivil. See my reproach for that, on User talk Knowledgekid87, 30Jan,14:22. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just filed a complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility of Knowledgekid87. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, your complaint against me has been reviewed and many editors have found your conduct is as bad or worse then whatever you think I did. Your complaint against User:Knowledgekid87 was quickly dismissed. I never swore at you in 2014 or since so that claim is a lie. Your canvassing of other editors about your ANi thread is not appropriate and your continued musing about how to vote on sanctioning me are bludgeoning. Grow a thicker skin, take your lumps and find something else to do other then focus on me. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve answered LP on User talk:Legacypac#(No) focusing. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note

Since you previously participated in this thread, I wanted to let you know a concrete proposal has been profferred here, in case you missed it. LavaBaron (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working through conflicts on the talk page

Hi Corriebertus, I noticed that you have altered or undone a number of my edits at Free Syrian Army, specifically concerning foreign support for these fighting units, and how religious the units are. While foreign support is well documented (and there is surely more that is undocumented, since most of this support involves operations by clandestine services), you appear to be questioning the veracity of the sources. A few of your edits have been helpful (for instance correcting a date mistake I made), but others involve your own original research (WP:OR) and obscure, rather than clarify the nature of foreign support.

I don't want to edit war with you, and so I've made four separate sections at Talk:Free Syrian Army over the last ten days in order to engage with you there and resolve these issues. But you have never once responded to these posts, that each ping you, and continue to edit on Free Syrian Army with your arguments placed in the edit summaries of your edits. Edit summaries are important but they are not a means of resolving disputes, especially over what sources do and do not say. Please participate in the talk page discussions, where we can achieve consensus and avoid edit wars. -Darouet (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this posting, alerting me. I really never knew you were trying to discuss with me on that page. I'll soon run to it and see. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reponded to your question about the lead on the talk page. MOS lead states that leads should be no more than 4 paragraphs, and ours is two paragraphs right now. Also, I didn't "copy" random sentences to the lead - all these sentences were present before you removed them to shorten the lead dramatically. After my latest edit you deleted information on foreign support, asking why highlight the roles of the Unites States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. These should be mentioned because they are the major sources of weapons and money mentioned in articles. I don't mind if we respond to your criticism by mentioning other countries in general or by naming them specifically, but just removing the information biases the article by failing to mention where the FSA's money and weapons came from. -Darouet (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Operation Impact

In Canada, the news reported initially as Operation Impact. Just like we do not refer to Canada's contribution in the War in Afghanistan as the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Its jingoistic and overtly American-nationalistic. Furthermore, Canada is not at war with ISIL. We do not recognize it as an official government and therefore cannot declare war on it. Hence the use of the official military term. Llammakey (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced this discussion to Talk:Operation Impact#Proposed move. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War

I do not think we should create special subsection in that article for the role of countries whose contribution is marginal and who play minor sidekicks to the US.Axxxion (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you measure which contribution/role/support/involvement is "marginal"? What do you mean with: (some) countries "play minor sidekicks to the US"? This article just lists the countries that play some active role in the SCW. The Netherlands for example does so explicitly at the side of the US in a US-initiated war (not my idea, it is stated explicitly like that by their government). Does that make them a "sidekick" of US? ('Sidekick' means: someone who works together at the side of someone else. In that sense you may perhaps call the Netherlands sidekick of US here. If you mean something more or something else, then what?) Isn't that just some derisive, belittling choice of words? And even if that makes them 'sidekick': so what? If being 'sidekick' leaves their being actively involved in the SCW unimpaired, they should simply be listed in this article. As for "minor": see my remark about "marginal". --Corriebertus (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Al-masdar News

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Al-masdar News requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ARA News

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ARA News requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Southern Levant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Levant 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/Southern Levant 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder

Looking over today's edit history for 2016 Nice attack, things are seeming a bit war-like. May be a good time to take a break, and have a nice cup of tea. TimothyJosephWood 15:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was (is?) a disagreement, we decided to discuss it on Talk page rather than edit war. Discussing works quite well, I believe. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion at Talk:2016 Nice attack

The terrorism category discussion has been reopened by Gerry1214 and an IP user and is now ongoing again. Contribute if you're interested. Parsley Man (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at this and work out which synonym of ' on account of' is meant. Perhaps you mean 'according to'. Pincrete (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I seem to have slipped there. Thanks. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I notice you think I'm trying to disrupt the discussion at Talk:2016 Nice attack, which I consider a personal attack. Please take it back. Parsley Man (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I ought not have said that there, sorry. I've adapted that statement of mine. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Corriebertus. 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]

Free Syrian Army-related deletion discussion

Hello, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the deletion of the recently-created article Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army. Due to your history with discussions regarding what is and what is not FSA you may want to be involved. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Free Syrian Army-related deletion discussion

Hello, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the deletion of the recently-created article Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turkish_Free_Syrian_Army. you may want to be involved.

.Alhanuty (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constitution of 1791. 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) 09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've repaired that wikilink. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Syria Direct

The article Syria Direct has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (media) and Wikipedia:Notability (websites)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Corriebertus. 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]

2017 election in Germany

Wrt [11]: I am still of the opinion that a sentence you have rewritten removes an important piece of information (namely “This allows them to join in one parliamentary group after the election as the CDU/CSU”). If there were even a single state where CDU and CSU concurred such a combined parliamentary group would not be allowed (cf. [12]). I would be happy if you could think of a wording which retains this information. Thank you and kind regards, —Vogone (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me that, with references. I've updated the article. Please check if it seems al right. Kind regards, --Corriebertus (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: before you explained it here to me, I had not understood that this joining of groups/Fraktionen was administered by official rules and regulations. Regards, --Corriebertus (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abdul Rashid Dostum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghan civil war (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case, pointing to what you call ‘disambiguation page’ Afghan civil war seemed the best available option. Dostum speaks of ‘civil war’, but we simply don’t know to which specific period or ‘war’ or events he is referring. (The 'ambiguity', you might say, comes here on the account of Dostum.) --Corriebertus (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Jaysh al-Islam. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Your recent attempts to remove all properly sourced criticism of the group which you basically decry as propaganda (despite them being sourced by various respected agencies from all sides of the conflict, from BBC and VoA to Fox and RT) have not gone unnoticed. Please, desist from removing properly sourced content from Wikipedia. If you want to discuss a particular change feel free to use the talk page of a specific article you want to edit. Thanks. Naj'entus (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Naj'entus. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Jaysh al-Islam that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Decrying other editors' contributions to Wikipedia as "vandalism" simply because you don't agree with them is considered a form of personal attack here. Next time try to explain your position without claiming other users are vandals. Naj'entus (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Naj'entus: As often as I've removed info from article Jaysh al-Islam since 3 March, I did that with given and various motivations, which is totally normal Wiki practice. You, however, are in the habit (5 March 23:46, 7 March 17:14, 8 March 11:02) to quickly and roughly sweep away long lists of recent edits in one very poorly/succinctly, unsufficiently motivated edit. The first time it was a list of 31 revisions almost all from me; second time you basically repeated that action although I had strongly protested against it; the third time it were 10 revisions from Bobfrombrockley and from two other editors (none from me). This behaviour of you seems really outrageous.

I dubbed that behaviour as (possibly) "vandalism" on Talk page 6 March, and also in my edit summary on page 'Jaysh' on 6 March, 14:25. Not "simply because I didn't agree with" your edit, but because it seemed, and again seems on 7 and 8 March, to heavily violate basic working principles/ethics of Wikipedia. I have not claimed you to be a vandal, I've only suggested that that one edit of yours was 'vandalistic' (brutally destructive etc.). --Corriebertus (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more apology: my saying 'vandalistic edit' didn't mean to say that I assumed bad faith in Naj'entus. It just meant to say that the effect of that edit seemed to me considerably damaging to the article, in a way that seemed to violate main Wikipedia principles and values about good collaboration. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop planting easter eggs

Wikipedia policy is that piped links should be as intuitive as possible. See MOS:EGG. So please stop adding easter eggs with innocuous text, which if clicked on takes them to an article on the CIA.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise. And I remove that alarming lamp light (gif) from this section. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed (Afghan (mujahideen) uprising)

I was very surprised by the citation needed tag you added today.

A few days ago (25th March), you made this edit, in which you added the following source to the same sentence:

Kaplan, Robert D. (2008). Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Knopf Doubleday. pp. 115–117. ISBN 9780307546982.

Do you have access to this source? Or did you copy the citation from another article?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I copied that source-reference from CIA activities in Afghanistan#Covert action (1979), and it applied only to reasons for the revolt (not to the (mysterious?) starting date of them) -- I ought to have been more precise about that on 25March ! Presently I have no access to that book. Are you sure Kaplan in that book mentions some (approximate) starting date? If so: which date? in the edit summary 30 March you elaborate on Taraki taking/losing power, but that tells us nothing about a starting date of (mujahideen) rebellion. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not seen the book you are citing, how do you know it contains the information you are providing it as a citation for?-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your last question turned rhetoric after six minutes, I presume: from your edit 13:54 on Afghanistan I understand that you consider copying such information with cited source from another Wiki article unacceptable. I agree that it is (highly) dubious--that's why I first attempted to introduce that information with only a 'piped link'--which I possibly did in a wrong way (19March,16:01 and earlier).
But it seems strange in this important article, 'Afghanistan#History', not to mention the causes for mujahideen uprising while those causes are included in a 'minor' (more obscure) Wiki article. Can we in any way refer in art.Afghanistan to that other Wiki article's information concerning those causes? --Corriebertus (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content use in People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan

Each use of a non-free file use is required to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria. One of these criteria (more specifically one part of one of these criteria) is WP:NFCC#10c which says that a separate sepcific non-free use rationale is requried for each use of a non-free file. File:Anahita.png and File:Abdul Qader Saur.png are lacking the required rationales for their use in People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, which means that those particular non-free uses do not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. So, if you feel that their use does and think they should be re-added to the article, then it is your responsibility per WP:NFCCE to provide a rationale for each use explaining how.

Be advised, however, that although Wikipedia does generally allow the use of non-free images of deceased individuals for primary identification purposes the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the individuals in question, the non-free use use of such photos in other articles can be much harder to justify. So, the rationales for the files should specifically address how these particular uses satisfy all ten of the aforementioned criteria. Just for refernece, such usage tends to be considered to WP:DECORATIVE because the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking; in other words, you need to explain how seeing these images significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that omitting them would be detrimental to that understanding. Typically, the way this is done is by providing sourced critical commentary somewhere in the article about the image itself which strongly ties the image into the article content. Simply wanting to show what someone mentioned in the article looks like is not considered sufficient and considered to be WP:DECORATIVE. While its true that Ratebzad and Qadir are mentioned by name within in the article, there are links to their respective articles where the images can be seen and there is nothing really specific about the images themselves to justify the non-free use of those files in this article, so per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, NFCC#8 and even item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI the links to the stand-alone article are considered enough. If you disagree with this assessment, once again please the rationales. If you want other opinions, you can ask about this at WT:NFC or WP:MCQ if you like.

One last thing, providing a rationale is not in and of itself automatically a justification of acceptable non-free use as explained in WP:JUSTONE; it just provides something to assess and further discussion may be necessary at WP:FFD. Regardless, please don't re-add the files to the article again without at least providing some sort of non-free use rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not versed in these matters, but at first sight your reasoning sounds solid. Next time, perhaps you can give some clearer motivation in your first attempt at such a (photo deleting) edit. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those two files was deleted; they were only removed an article where their non-free use was not policy compliant and both are still being used in the stand-alone articles for each individual. There are only so many characters which can be used in an edit sum, so sometimes things are kept brief and links to relevant policy pages where much more detailed information can be found are used instead. It's OK to ask for clarification if there's something you don't understand in either the edit sum or on the cited policy/guideline page. Anyway, the next time you want to add a non-free image to an article, just check to make sure that it, at the very least, has the non-free use rationale it needs for the desired use before (re-)adding the file to the article. If it doesn't have the required rationale and you feel that the particular non-free use can be justified, just provide the rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the rule you’ve been explaining to me might seem harsh/illogical. Let’s simply say the photo was ‘stolen’ or found somewhere (‘non-free use’); Wiki allows itself to use the photo on a hardly visited article (the stand-alone art.) but not in an article (PDPA) where it might usefully enliven the article? I mean, assuming that is the Wiki policy: how logical, sensible (or Pharisaical) is that? --Corriebertus (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Non-free content use policy is something which has been developed over many years through community consensus. It has intentionally been made to be more restrictive than the the concept of fair use (see WP:NFC#Background for more details). If you feel there are parts of it which might need reassessing or tweaking, you can propose something at WT:NFC and see how others respond. Policies usually get to be what they are because of a strong community consensus in favor of them, but that doesn't mean they cannot ever be changed or improved upon as needed. One thing which distinguishes Wikipedia's non-free content use policy from other policies, however, is the that the non-free content use policy is based upon a Wikimedia Foundation Resolution; so, there are limitations as to how much it can be changed. In other words, the English Wikipedia community nor any other language Wikipedia community cannot just decide to ignore, supercede or void a WMF resolution per WP:CONEXCEPT, but it may be possible to change things that will still keep the policy in compliance with the resolution. Just for reference, there are some other language Wikipedias or other WMF projects which have decided to not to allow any non-free content use at all.

"Enliven" seems like another word for for "decorative" and non-free content use is not really allowed for decorative purposes. If you feel that the non-free use of those files in the PDPA article can be justified, then provide the required rationales and re-add the files to the article. If someone disagrees with you, they can nominate the files for discussion at WP:FFD. As I said above, the way the files were being used is a type of non-free use which is not typically allowed; however, you may be able to make a persuasive argument that it should be allowed for these files in that particular article.

I'm not sure what you mean by a photo being "stolen" since uploading a file as non-free content basically assumes that the photo is protected by copyright. Permission of the original copyright holder is not needed; it's nice maybe, but not necessary as long as it can be demonstrated that the photo has been published somewhere (WP:NFCC#4) and other information relative to the photo is provided (WP:NFCC#10a). Maybe you mean a photo is "stolen" when someone claims to be the original copyright holder when they are not and then uploads the photo to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under a free license. Such a file would technically not be subject to the non-free content use policy, but such files are typically deleted as copyright violations per WP:F9 in obvious cases or per WP:F11 if their copyright ownership cannot be properly verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Corriebertus. 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 2018 election voter message

Hello, Corriebertus. 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]

July 2019

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to We Are Sthlm sexual assaults. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2015–16 New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asylum and Paris attacks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rojava

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Rojava, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rojava. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rojava (2)

The Rojava article is subject to editing restrictions, as stated on its talk page , Talk:Rojava:

"Limit of one revert per 24 hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

Your recent edits have violated that restriction, and I suggest you undo them if you want to avoid being blocked or sanctioned. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling. First of all, for notifying me of that actual restriction on the page, that I was not aware of. Secondly, I'm not so sure--as you seem to be--that I have already violated that reverting restriction: if I look at the Wikipedia definition of "revert", I've given only one of them, on that page, yesterday (12:47). --Corriebertus (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EW, "To revert is to undo the action of another editor. ". After your (12:47) revert (which you acknowledge above), you then did this at 20:40, undoing my own edit. You are now aware of the restriction. Next time you violate it, I will simply report you, and you can expect to be blocked. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version", says page Help:Reverting. The warning on Talk:Rovaja does not speak of "edit warring", as you(Here come the Suns) suggest, but of "reverting". In that given restriction on reverting, it seems allowed to partly undo a previous edit (as I possibly did at 20:40, 19 Oct.), as long as you don't literally revert two times on one day. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partly undoing is a revert. Feel free to test your theory. I won't warn again. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2019 Iraqi protests

On 3 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Iraqi protests, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this tribute/salute/recognition cheers me up a great deal. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Your recent editing history at European migrant crisis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ritchie92 (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no edit war yet, because I've reverted Ritchie's edit twice, not thrice. Ritchie has also reverted me twice. Also, it is not that "other editors disagree", there's only one editor yet disagreeing, that's Ritchie. Further discussion now preferably on talk Eur. migr. crisis. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Previously you seem to have worked on the article 2015–16 New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, an article draft on similar incidence in Pakistan needs edit help.

Requesting your visit to article Draft:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and help in expanding and improving the article.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. I've reacted on that page's talk page. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 08:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hi Corriebertus! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Democracy in Iraq that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I accept that. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Corriebertus!

Happy New Year!

Corriebertus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hypersexuality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Impairment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed it. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2

Good luck with your absolutely deluded "one" "state" "solution" which will NEVER happen. And thank God too, with such wonderful models of one-states such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Somalia, Lebanon, Bosnia and Herzegovina...

If "nobody" is talking about the 2SS and it's some "abstract" "theoretical" stuff, then NOBODY is talking about the 1S"S" outside of academic elites. The VAST MAJORITY of Israelis want a 2SS and the most recent poll conducted on the eve of Hamas' terrorist attack would still vote for Abbas or Bargouti of pro-2SS Fatah... Even in the progressive The Squad in the US Congress, ALL but 1 support the 2SS... Canada's NDP, British/Australian/New Zealander Labour, European Social Democratic and Labour Parties, Meretz, the Israeli Labor Party, Yair Lapid and Yesh Atid, Bernie Sanders, Gabriel Boric, Lula, and even Podemos, Sinn Fein, Syriza, LFI, and Russia and China support a two-state solution.

Sorry, the one-state "solution" will NEVER EVER happen.

If the two-state solution is pie in the sky, then the 1S"S" is a pie on Pluto.

Now how about you edit the header of the Wikipedia page of one "state" "solution" to show how oh so theoretical and "abstract" it is too? (Beyond the fantasies of Hamas, the PFLP, PIJ, the Religious Zionist Party, and Ben Gvir...)

Or oh no, it may turn out you're just biased against the two-state solution... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:38A:4400:DDC7:B1D4:BEA2:F857 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing me. If you disagree with any edit of mine specifically, please edit it again (with a clear motivation, like I did) or discuss it with whom you want.
As to page One-state solution: I never even knew it existed. If I'd ever come around reading it, and finding errors (or nonsense) on it, I might again be tempted to edit it : I think, that is the whole idea of this wonderful project called Wikipedia ! By the way, I'm not aware of ever having defended any (one- nor two-)state solution, on Wikipedia; I don't see it as my 'job' on Wikipedia to 'defend' anything (except the factual reliability of Wikipedia); I'm just worried over nonsense, fantasies, 'fake news', etc. that I encounter here and there, on Wikipedia. I wish you all the best, --Corriebertus (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for specific users on Talk Page

Hi Corriebertus,

Just dropping a quick note to ask that if you have specific questions concerning my edits or the edits of others, it's probably a best practice to have those discussions on the individual's talk page as opposed to on the article's talk page. I tend to think of article talk pages as a medium for building consensus, as opposed to user pages for individual questions and concerns.

Admittedly, it's a personal preference. Cheers! Cawhee^Talk 17:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion on this. Recently, I followed your preferenced method, by asking a colleague on his individual talk page about his editing, and some other colleague (I can't remember who) seemed to give me the opposite advice: to conduct such discussions on the talk page of the involved Wiki article ...... (By the way, I haven't yet had the time and energy to see what your reaction has been, on my question(s) to you.) --Corriebertus (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hamas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Justice and Public Policy moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Journal of Global Justice and Public Policy. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VR

If you have a problem with another editor, then raise it on their talk page in the first instance, an edit summary rant is entirely inappropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse, I have tried that often enough; but VR appears totally immune for such polite remarks/criticism. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of edit summary

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Hamas. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my information: where did the abuse start, and where is my personal attack, in your linguistic world/universe? And what is uncivil in my communication to and about Vice regent? --Corriebertus (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: you are intimidating me with your suggestions about “abusive” comments, (in)civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, etc..

So please, answers my questions (given above, 10 July) as to what and where I’ve done or gone wrong, exactly, in your eyes. Vaguely intimidating someone, without further explanation, cannot be seen as nice behaviour, rather as incivility itself.

For your information: I’ve started criticizing Vice regent about his (non-cooperative) working style on his talk page on 10 November 2023 ; no substantial reaction came – except on a small, technical detail (11 Nov.2023). His ‘disguising’ working style never changed (much), so I started to comment on that style in my own edit summaries, for example like this one (10 Nov 2023) but more explicitly this one (14 Nov 2023) and this one 17 Feb 2024 (, etc., etc.) – making clear also to colleagues that I disapproved of Vice regent’s secretive style etc.. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be making such comments in your edit summaries ("Does that editor consider other contributors as his enemies?" is especially unhelpful), if you have an issue like that it should be addressed either on the editor's talk page or the article talk page. Such behavior repeated over a long period of time could be percieved as WP:HARASSMENT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good suggestion: I can raise such issue on talk page of the article. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is a virulent anti-Two-state solutionist as- just look at his vandalist bad faith "edits" to the Two-state solution page... Funny how he doesn't do a fair and balanced edit how naive far-leftists like him have "declared" the One-state solution to be THE solution for the conflict (hint: There's NO plan either (and no, hoping they live in a singular "secular and democratic state" and sing kumbaya together isn't going to cut it (anymore than it did for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Libya, Bosnia and Herzegovina. What wonderful one-state solutions in action they are...))) Nah. FREE FREE PALESTINE. Long live the two-state solution! From the River to the 1967 borders, Palestine will be free of the Occupier! Good luck, I hope you succeed in banning this as- for bad faith editing and harassment.
- - - [ Inserted on 22 July 2024, 11:56, by user 2604:3d09:38a:4400:5cc3:3611:62be:a75e , half-way the latest (12 July) contribution of Horse Eye's Back. ] - - -

Concern regarding Draft:Journal of Global Justice and Public Policy

Hello, Corriebertus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Journal of Global Justice and Public Policy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]