Jump to content

User talk:Greyshark09/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2004 al-Qamishli riots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Union Party. 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) 09:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

List of ongoing armed conficts

Hi. I noticed you’ve removed the wikilinks I added from the cumulative fatalities data in the table of ongoing armed conflicts (wikilinks to "Casualties of the Syrian Civil War" and "Casualties of Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal)"). I understand that is the standard format for the table, but since much more detailed data about fatalities can be found in specific wiki articles, can’t they be linked somewhere? Have you got any idea? Perhaps we should put them in the “see also” section?Nykterinos (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nykterinos: Putting a string instead of a number in a "sortable" table might damage the sortable capability. Since sortable capability is important for various purposes of table users, i thought of it as problematic, especially since it has never been incorporated in the past. This (2012) and this (2013) editorials attempted to fix it, but we still have had problems if something is changed. I think it is best to discuss such addition on the talk page, and have an opinion of all experienced editors - maybe we can add it with no problems, but i'm not sure.GreyShark (dibra) 09:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jewish-Sasanian commonwealth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jewish-Sasanian commonwealth 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/Jewish-Sasanian commonwealth 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. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

I undid your many edits to Palestine/Israel/Mandatory Palestine-related categories and articles. Then I got the point, and undid all of my edits. I apologize, and hope I undid all of them. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: I guess you thought i had been making s bad faith practice, but you should have seen the wide discussions about how to name country categories in relation to the past. It has generally been a consensus that modern states should not be used for naming categories before state's creation (republic of Syria, State of Israel, State of Palestine etc)., see American, Syrian, Palestinian territories categories as examples. I have been working a lot to fix retroactively incorrect categories (like "130s in Palestine", which is obviously overlapping "130s in the Roman Empire"), but there is still much work to do. If you understand - then no harm is done. Cheers my friend.GreyShark (dibra) 19:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understood after a few minutes. Moreover, this very same issue had been bothering me as well over the last few months. So I am happy you are making Wikipedia better in this regard. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Debresser: Thanks, you are welcome to collaborate with me on this - there is a huge volume of cats to process, but eventually it would make world history much more understandable.GreyShark (dibra) 20:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:2nd century in the Roman Empire]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on article 'Syrian Kurdistan'

Hi, I saw you're active in administrating Syrian Civil war articles. This user http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%88_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D9%83%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%88%D9%85 has been reverting a lot of edits related to Syrian Kurdistan, removing useful information that is cited without participating on the talk page. His last revert moved the page back to Syrian Kurdistan after I moved it to Rojava with his comment of "This article should not exist in the first place, as there is no such thing on the ground". This indicates to me a nationalist bias. The article should be called Rojava, as that is what is is referred to in the foreign press, and what the locals call it. The article is about a region which is under the governance of the PYD, which also refers to the region as Rojava. The only people who object to this are Syrian Arab nationalists who don't live in Rojava, and are against its separatist aspirations. The fact we have articles on Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) and Kosovo (not South Serbia), is precedent that this article should be called Rojava. Thanks. Genjix (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Genjix: First of all, please don't move such an article without a discussion (it is a sensetive subject, thus please use WP:RM). I will take a look at the edit history of the Syrian Kurdistan page on reverts.GreyShark (dibra) 18:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks, I will put it back then, but there is discussion on the talk page. He just reverted my edits here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=643079750 Genjix (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Amru bin Kalthum was officially warned for his 3 successive reverts in 24h (see WP:SCWGS sanctions). Please note that Syrian Kurdistan article is under WP:1RR sanctions, or 1 revert maximum per user per 24hr; it seems you have not violated it so far, but Amru had.GreyShark (dibra) 18:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Too Small

The EPP insurgency is not too small, there is no such thing as too small. As long as at least 1 person gets killed per year it is classified as a low intensity conflict.Cheers--Catlemur (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Catlemur: - yes it is too small because it is below 100 cumulative deaths (EPP conflict is at around 50 killed total). Please look at the guidelines of the List of ongoing military conflicts.GreyShark (dibra) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move for page 'Syrian Kurdistan' to 'Rojava', 18 January 2015

Just a heads up, Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Requested_move_18_January_2015. Thanks. Genjix (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please respond-.

I raised a legitimate request for you to explain your unannounced unilateral change of the article to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 on the talk page. I think you should respond, and give reason. These pages are content-wise, not descriptions year by year of the I/PO conflict, but highly specific pages ignoring all historical, political and other issues to focus on incidents of violence, which you have now erased as the theme. Please respond there. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of cat from article on Christianity in Lebanon

Hi, Greyshark09. I've reverted your removal of the Greek Orthodox Christians from Lebanon cat from Christianity in Lebanon as you didn't provide an ES as to why you removed it. So far as I can tell from the article, there is a long-standing group of Greek Orthodox adherents there. If I've made an error in judgement, please let me know. I realise you're trying to clean up cats, but I don't see that it is a sub-cat of another cat already attached. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: It was a WP:GF edit, thinking that this cat is designated for individuals who are "Greek Orthodox Christians from Lebanon". I don't see how Christianity in Lebanon is specifically to be tagged as a Greek Orthodox person.GreyShark (dibra) 20:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
EEKS! I just started going through the articles in that cat and see your point entirely: redundant at best. I may as well set up a category for 'Protestant Christians from Australia', etc. It seems that someone decided that WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Well, like you I beg to differ. I'll self rev and make a note of my objections in the ES. Keep up the good work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Khazar article

Greyshark09, I looked up the first citation of the material you added to Khazars, which presumably was lifted from the Crimean Karaites article, since it also had almost no information on the text being cited (aside from the author's last name and page numbers). It doesn't make that claim anywhere on the pages listed. It makes a passing reference to them claiming this to escape persecution in the 18th century, but that's all. The citation also cites the entire chapter, and that's not exactly good practice. Unless you can find a reliable source that claims this, and isn't specifically about Firkovich, I think we're going to have to remove it. I'll check the other sources as well to see if there's more WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR going on, as there seems to be here. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Quinto Simmaco: Sure, can you mark it as "verify source"?GreyShark (dibra) 07:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arab Spring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intifada. 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) 09:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Separation barrier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barrier. 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) 11:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arab Christians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mar Elias. 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, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Houthi insurgency in Yemen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Military rebellion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding intifadas

Hi. I took up an issue at the Arab Spring page that you can see here. If it is described as an intifada or the "Great Intifada", bring better sources. I also saw you added a part to Intifada. I have told you before and will do it again: entries on dab pages should not be piped as you did there. See WP:DABPIPE. The First Intifada and Second Intifada, and the supposed Third Intifada, is called exactly that. "Palestinian" is not part of the name. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

North Yemen Civil War

I see we're involved with the same troublemaker IP. Do you suggest reporting? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: - i actually noted that the IP is constantly changing, though this is likely the same user - I can see they all come from the New South Wales, Australia. I'm about to file a temporary article semi-protection for North Yemen Civil War. Do you see some other solution?GreyShark (dibra) 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

i have taken our issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--125.255.33.9 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to resubmit the DR. Please see noticeboard again.--125.255.33.9 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your point :)

Greyshark,

I agree with you that, for precisement and accuracy, it shouldn't be added in front of the reference. I'll add the phrase after the source, alright?

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Great! thank you for understanding and for your other contributions to the page.GreyShark (dibra) 15:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Arab Winter

Template:Arab Winter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Iraq War infobox

I appreciate your edits in general changing War on Terror links towards more specific operations, but in Iraq War here you changed "Part of the Global War on Terrorism" on the infobox to link to a sub-topic of that article, while maintaining the text of the heading. This introduces inconsistencies in the way that infobox is used elsewhere, where the header links to the parent War on Terror (as in Operation Enduring Freedom itself). War on Terror is a much more comprehensive article, but if you wish to redirect to OEF you should change the text of the link as well. Regards, Ian (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Lancaster: - i'm not really bothered by the revert, thanks for the notice though. The general and more problematic issue is that "War on Terror" (GWOT) is basically synonymous with the Operation Enduring Freedom, but remarkably many people refer to "War on Terror" not as a US-led campaign, but as something generic. The question is essentially why do we have both articles War on Terror and Operation Enduring Freedom, which are the same thing?GreyShark (dibra) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree it is problematic to by default refer back to the GWOT, which is more of a conceptual/political topic than the operations themselves. However, there is some coverage in the GWOT article of non-US actions and the fact that the term has been abandoned by the US administration (while OEF presumably carries on). Unfortunately, that infobox is not a template so it would need to be changed across many articles to be consistent. Ian (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ba'athism and racism

Its quite a different thing to say that Ba'athism the ideology is racist and being accused of racism. The latter happens to be the right, not the former. Anyhow, there's also a different between what the party does and what the party stands for, for instance, Stalin was an anti-Semite (in his later years it seems) and purged Jews from the party and forced the Eastern Bloc states to do the same, however, there are not many people who call the Communist Party of the Soviet Union anti-semite or racist. Adding the Ba'athism and the Ba'ath Party to the infobox simplifies a very controversial subject... I know from past contact that you're a very good contributor, so this surprised me.--TIAYN (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the good faith, however i would like to extend this discussion at the Ba'athism talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 05:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

North yemen

I don't know if you are employed by the israeli government to try and cover-up any embarassing facts on wiki but your removal of this content yet again, despite the new and improved sources, sure stinks of an ulterior motive. You removed israel: tell me where were you when jordan was added even though only one source was used to support its inclusion? Stop your agenda driven editing which you seek to clothe with petty reasoning to cover your tracks. Otherwise i will bring attention to your contradictory and idealogically-driven behaviour.120.18.69.222 (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is certainly going to my list of the funniest staff to encounter on wikipedia!GreyShark (dibra) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you find this and your contradictory and suspect behaviour so trivial.120.18.40.82 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hahah wow. I see the craziness extends well beyond Syrian Civil War related articles. Nulla Taciti (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
????120.18.18.36 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War infobox

If you could revert it back to something like your last edit on the template, that would be great. Other editors are adding operations rooms, and while I see what they are going for, these operations rooms are not supported by France, USA, etc. Nulla Taciti (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

Hello Greyshark09. Oncenawhile has raised a number of objections in the talk page of that article to your recent edits. Could you please debate with him and explain your position? Otherwise all of your constructive edits will be completely reverted. Thanks.--Averysoda (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI: JCPA. Regards, --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Zabadani

Created Battle of Zabadani (2015). EkoGraf (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 July

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

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) 00:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Houthis in the Syrian Civil War

Hello Greyshark, I propose to remove the involvement of Houthis in the Syrian Civil War, see Talk:Syrian Civil War#Houthis. I notice it to you because I saw you discussed once about this topic in the talk page archive. Congrats for your work ! (you can talk with me on wp:fr)--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, there is no solid evidence for any significant Houthi role in the Syrian conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 18:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Colors of Shia Houthis/Sunni fighters in Yemen

Greyshark, I really think we should flip the colors of the Houthis and Hadi fighters, because it would reduce color confusion with Syria. I think that because Iran and Syria support the Houthis as the 'legitimate government', and in Syria the US, Turkey, Saudis, etc. do not recognize Assad as the legitimate governor, we need a clearer colors on the map. With all of this confusion, I think everything would be clearer if the colors were based on alliances and religious sects, rather than 'legitimacy'. Since there is so much confusion, I am not going to edit the map yet.Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but maybe first let's finish with the colors in Lebanon, so we would have a good precedent. I'm filing a request for closure regarding Lebanon at Administrator's noticeboard.GreyShark (dibra) 06:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian categories

Hi! I saw your removal of the "X in Syria" categories as "anachronistic". While I broadly agree with avoiding modern terms in historical categories, I am not sure that this is necessary here. "Syria" is a valid term in a 10th-century context, just as "Italy", "Iraq", or "Greece" is, as long as it is made clear that this is a geographic term and not coterminous with the modern nation-states of the same name. "Syria" is certainly used frequently in English-language sources as a shorthand for the wider Islamic Levant. Anyhow, what would you propose as a valid alternative name? "Bilad al-Sham", "Jund Dimashq/Hims/etc.", something else? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Cplakidas - concerning Syrian categories, i'm merely implementing the community consensus since 2013, which states we cannot utilize "Syria" for periods earlier than the modern state, due to confusion and automatic association with the Syrian Arab Republic (for example, in one of the few still existing Syrian categories for Middle Ages Category:7th century in Syria, you find the Ba'athist Republic flag and subcategorization, though Assad government had nothing to do with it). Similar decisions concerning anachronism were taken on Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey and even US and Pakistan among others, so it is pretty much a solid community decision to go in this direction, though there is still much confusion for quite a few other countries (like Italy). One of the strongest claims against anachronism is the case of South Sudan, which separated from Sudan in 2011 - should the community as a result rename all historic categories of modern South Sudan to "X in South Sudan"? the answer is certainly negative. Same way, we shouldn't rename all historic North Iraq related categories to "X in Southern Kurdistan" in case Kurds declare independence.
The community did decide however to keep provincial subcategories of Syria during the Ottoman Era, thus having "X in Ottoman Syria" categories, and there are categories for Syria under French Mandate as "X in Mandatory Syria", but for earlier periods we simply utilize "X in <Empire>", as there aren't enough articles to populate "X in Abbasid Syria" and "X in Fatimid Syria" (so we just use "X in the Abbasid Empire" and "X in the Fatimid Empire"). There is currently a discussion whether to revise to "X in Ottoman Syria" category and merge it to "X in Ottoman Empire", so you are welcome to express your opinion there.GreyShark (dibra) 08:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not as clear-cut as you think. There's consensus against that kind of stuff now. Changing Puerto Rico to the Spanish colonial name lost. Taiwan and Formosa is a disaster now. Ceylon remained over Sri Lanka even though it was considered anachronistic by one person. The Empire of Brazil is unsettled. The German Empire failed (Germany remains Germany for portions of the Holy Roman Empire period (even with a separate Holy Roman Empire), for all the German Empire period, for the Weimar Republic, for Nazi Germany). There's also this one and Iraqi Kurdistan at the moment. Believe me, I didn't create these at random. The proper conduct would be to list the categories for deletion, rather than to depopulate the categories and then list them for C1 deletion, thereby depriving any discussion about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I also note that in that Ottoman Syria discussion User:Marcocapelle specifically proposes using both the Ottoman Empire categories and the Syria categories. If that became the closing proposal, then we have to restore everything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a strong opposition to use Syrian Arab Republic cats for past eras. If any i would propose to change Syria to Syrian Arab Republic for current categories, as Syria doesn't exist as a state any more.GreyShark (dibra) 08:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Syrian categories have been discussed three times already, and you still recreated them. If you wish to raise this issue again - please make a proposal and inform previous participants. Going WP:SNOWBALL is not acceptable on this, projecting a bad faith.GreyShark (dibra) 08:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. None of those categories I created were created before or I would have seen the deletion history. The Ottoman Syria ones failed to include an old CFD notice on their talk pages or else I have known about it. Besides consensus can change especially after two years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Consensus indeed can change, but i assumed good faith for your edits, not going to administrative noticeboards, but rather making a friendly discussion. Please raise a discussion before you change the previous consensus - no problem with rediscussing it again.GreyShark (dibra) 09:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 Interestingly, i do however see that you also tend to agree to use contemporary entities and not anachronistic ones, considering your recent proposal at Guyana categories. So, i guess you do understand what am i talking about regarding Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 09:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also support your proposal Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_12#German_Empire, if raised again. Germany is an article about modern Federal German Republic, if we go to Nazi Germany or German Empire, the cats should change as well.GreyShark (dibra) 10:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 August

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

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) 00:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

New category

Hello Greyshark09,

Hope you are doing well :)

I have seen you have created a new category Category:1948 disestablishments in Mandatory Palestine. I have no mind about this but I wonder what is the added value with Category:Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. What is your idea in creating this category ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I know you are dealing mainly with Palestinian Arab issue, but a large number of disestablishments were also made within Yishuv - not only villages, but also organizations which were abolished in favor of the new state institutions.GreyShark (dibra) 06:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And eg merged in the new Israeli administration... Some civilian Arab active in the Mandatory administration should have disappeared too.
I understand. Thank you for the clarification. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed - like the Arab Higher Committee. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you removed a mention of Israeli settlement from Settlement. Can you explain why? "Settlement(s)" is widely used and is written just like that in many articles discussing the Israeli settlements. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also turkish, baathist and other settlement examples exist but not mentioned there, as they are specific cases of settlement concept. It is evident that if all cases of specific colonial and other settlements are mentioned in the dab page - we should write either all or none. There is even Palestinian settlement if you like.GreyShark (dibra) 04:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
None of them are the one widely referred to when speaking about settlements in a political conflict and anyway, that isn't a reason to remove it, but rather add the others. Less so when you at the same time added a section called "Human settlement expansion, squatting and colonization" and added several links to settlement movements under that section. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The real question is why haven't i removed the colonization of Americas and the Prussian colonization - i don't remember. I think providing all the examples of settler colonialism on that page is completely redundant, so i guess i better remove those two as well. Do you prefer i readd Israeli settlements into settler colonialism section?GreyShark (dibra) 17:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I think that as the Israeli settlements are referred to many times as simply "settlements", it belongs in that disambiguation page, and it is not about if it is settler colonialism or not. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a clear POV statement.GreyShark (dibra) 20:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
In what way? Are not Israeli settlements often just referred to as "settlements"? --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Only if you read specific articles on that specific topic - there you find a discussion about "the" settlements (in regard to the topic). We had this discussion on separation barrier as well if i recall correctly. If you spend your time on Israeli-Palestinian conflict topics alone, you might naturally get an illusion that "Middle East conflict" is the Palestine conflict and that "settlements" are Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights. That is however only your personal perspective.GreyShark (dibra) 20:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If others are also usually referred when they speak about "settlements", add it. What is clear is that Israeli settlements are many times referred to when speaking about that. For example, searching for "settlements" on Google gives Israeli settlement at number four. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
First, get rid of wikipedia, and secondly, go to more reliable sources search. If you dispose of the circular wikipedia results, Israeli settlements are not anywhere on the first page of Google Books. Actually those are Scotish-Irish settlements in the Americas, colonial settlements in Ohio, Frankish settlements in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, law settlement issue, Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland, Settlement and Unsettlement in Early America, conflict settlement essay, maritime boundary settlements (international law) and similar.21:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This was to show how popular the usage is. RS has nothing to do with this. To only look for the first page is weird with such a usual word that can mean many different things and in this context, the word is usually written in plural. A standard Google search (with "-Wikipedia") gives 7 results on the first 10 pages. By the way, as pictures shows up when searching, I decided to look specifically on pictures and Israeli settlements dominates. 3 search results comes on the first 10 pages on Google Books. So I would say it is pretty common and other settlement projects are nowhere to see. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
7 results of what in the first 10 pages?GreyShark (dibra) 21:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Websites that talk about the Israeli settlements. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think IRISZOOM gets the point here [1]. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of those results are from websites of politically involved organizations (B'tzelem, Peace Now). This is a self-promotion of the issue, which they are interested in. Nothing encyclopedic in relying on those results.GreyShark (dibra) 14:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You don't have the luxury to decide which results count and which don't. This has nothing to do with self-promotion and in fact, most are rather from newspapers. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Listen, what is the argument anyway? What is the desired result you are seeking?GreyShark (dibra) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
That Israeli settlement is mentioned again on the disambiguation page Settlement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
So that is something we almost agreed on in the very beginning. Later however we went into an argument of whether it should contain concepts or cases as well (American Settlement, Israeli Settlement, etc.). I think i made a good job restructuring the disambig page into an encyclopedic one, focusing on concepts of settlement, which is the case per Google Scholar results. If you consider it important to expand it to cases - go for it, though my opinion is that the page may inflate as other cases can be added (and Israeli settlement is a case, not a concept, thus allowing editors also to add American Settlement, Hyundai-Kia Settlement and other very notable topics).GreyShark (dibra) 14:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
What I have been saying is that Israeli settlements should be included just because they are referred to many times as just "settlements". If others are also called just "settlement(s)", then those can be added to. I haven't seen for example Hyundai/KIA Settlement been called just "settlement". --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I could't see your point within encyclopedic and reliable sources - look up Webster, the Free Dictionary, the Google Books and the Google Scholar results. Anyway, i've said it already - go for it.GreyShark (dibra) 15:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I will repeat then: typing for "settlements" (as in this case the Israeli settlements are mostly written in plural) gave results that shows it is common, most clearly on Google Pictures and where most results were from newspapers. If you can find other things that are also referred to by just "settlement(s)", add them. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I have reinserted it now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@IRISZOOM: OK, but the only way this can exist on that page is under the "colonization, squatting and expansion" section. Israeli settlement is not a "unique" type of human settlement - i don't understand the relevance. I restored also European colonization of the Americas and the Prussian colonization of Poland. Basically - now it is the same content as before my restructuring; i may look into more relevant cases per .Google Books and Google Scholar results later.GreyShark (dibra) 21:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It would probably better to have it as a separate entry but this is how it was before. I just said why it is included and that is because it is often referred to when speaking about "settlements". It also happens to be an example of "Human settlement expansion, squatting and colonization" but that is not the reason it is there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 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:

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) 00:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Refugee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anatolian Greeks. 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) 11:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

British Burma

Despite what redirect may suggest, British Burma is no more a formality in 1866 than the Federal Republic of Germany is a formal way to refer to Germany in 1966. While by 1896 British Burma is Burma and the Federal Republic of Germany is Germany, in 1866 British Burma only covered part of Burma, what at times was also called Lower Burma. Upper Burma was an independent nation where the British had no rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of Libya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huda. 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) 11:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A question for you.

So it goes like this. There was a ridiculous default in Wikipedia that you contributed alot to it. You claim with a single source that the PNA transformed to SoP in 2 January 2013 while only one source supports such a giant claim. It is ridiculous to claim that the PLO have violated the Oslo Accords while only one source supports it. I gave all the reliable source to contradict this claim HERE. While fixing this ridiculous default I also need to delete an articles such as Prime Minister of the State of Palestine WHICH DOESN'T EXIST IN ANY RELIABLE SOURCE.

Now my question if very simple. Do you live in Israel? --Bolter21 11:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your issue is not of my focus of interest - whether PNA or SOP or whatever, it is all temporary. I come from the Galilee, which i'm native to. Now it happens to be under the rule of Israel and Lebanon (not sure for how long though with the current developments in the region).GreyShark (dibra) 12:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For over an entire week you are fighting for a lie you imposed on Wikipedia in 2013 and you"ve yet to bring not a single source to support your claim. If you continue not giving anysources or give at least one explenation to your unilaterally moves since 2013 your agenda is worthless. Every argument I started you avoided discussing and your "friends" you called for to help you also didn't help, some of them agreed with me that there was no transition and you also have no real source to support it. If you recognize the State of Palestine this is your concern, not Wikipedia's one.

Now give a source or give up. --Bolter21 10:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You are going into my hall of fame!GreyShark (dibra) 10:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You are the most ridiculous person I"ve ever seen in my life. You are a serious editor in Wikipedia, yet when people accuse you of unbased unilaterally moves, you don't repsond to them but you threat with bans and make fun of users. For each comment you post I still ask my self why won't I just unilaterally remove all of your unexplaned and poorly based unilaterally moves? --Bolter21 11:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of your confusion regarding me, i would like to say i thank you for finally creating a normal version of SoP land claims [2]. I have just inserted it into SOP article. Considering your misunderstanding - i don't recognize SoP. I don't think it is a state. It is at most a quasistate, which will likely never become a state. The point is however that it is named "State of Palestine" by the UN itself, and has a status of non-member observer state since 2012 (implemented in 2013). This change from autonomy (named PNA) to non-member observer 'quasi'-state (State of Palestine) is the key issue.GreyShark (dibra) 11:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I am proud of you, you gave an argument.
Here are the two parallal scenarios:
PLO declare independence of SoP in 1988, gets alot of recognition in the following 5 years and establish relations with many countries although doesn't controll anything. 2012: UN recognized the SoP as a non-member observer.
1993: Israel sign an agreement with the PLO to establish an intrim government. 1994 the Palestinian Authority is finally formed. 1997: the deadline for establishing a palestinian state was reached. 2005: Hamas wins elections in the PNA, in 2007 it take controll on Gaza Strip and Fatah (with the PLO) restore controll over the West Bank. 2013, Abbas decide to annoy Israel and change the name of the PNA to SoP.
The State of Palestine and the Palestinian Authority exist in parallel, one controll the West Bank, one represent the Palestinian People in the UN and in other organizations such as the Arab League. --Bolter21 11:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I am also concerned you made this unilaterally move to replace the map since I also did it a few months ago and after a long discussion it was agreed between me and Rob984 that the map with the whole territory will be the right one, the SoP is not the PNA although this is what you think. --Bolter21 11:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 2015 Russian air raids in Syria for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Russian air raids in Syria 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/2015 Russian air raids in Syria 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. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Article

I thought you might find this article interesting. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is it interesting for me?GreyShark (dibra) 17:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Because I think you are an intelligent person who chooses to look the other way. I feel from our interactions over the years that there's a chance that one day you will find it within yourself to question certain elements of the story you were taught. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you have a mistake, trying to put me and my people into the frames you know. We have been here long before and we shall remain long after your nation and your enemies will disappear altogether. I'm not a Mizrachi Jew, and not even a Jew even though all Jews are closely related to us.GreyShark (dibra) 18:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about that, and it's not relevant. It doesn't matter to me if you are Samaritan, Jewish or Martian, I would still respect you and would still have hope for you. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have hope for many others however - the Mid-East is burning as much as 100 years ago. Many will perish. Nations will fall.GreyShark (dibra) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
He has hope for you. That's a comfort, I bet. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy: saying "i have a hope for you" implies the cultural and religious background of the person. I cannot believe i actually read such an arrogant comment. As we say - ܐܝܣܪܐ ܒܓܝܢܢܠܐ ܩܝܫ ܩܝܫ ܩܪܝܐGreyShark (dibra) 11:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Really? You can't believe it? I'm not surprised at all. This patronizing attitude is not limited to you or your page, unfortunately. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I know. It is sad.GreyShark (dibra) 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I have great respect for the Aramean culture and history. I spent some time in the beautiful town of Ma'loula many years ago, and I can't begin to describe how awful it was to see what happened to it recently. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to 2006 Lebanon War

Any particular reason for removal of background page links in [3]? Gizmocorot (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Links already exist in the campaignboxes on the top of the page.GreyShark (dibra) 16:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

'Jordanian War Crimes'

Hello, the two categories you have added or created are not true. There is not a single source that support these claims.--Makeandtoss (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't want to reply, go ahead suit yourself. But don't show up protesting changes.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean?GreyShark (dibra) 18:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I mean I will be doing changes to these two categories, and possible their removal because they are absolutely baseless. --Makeandtoss (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
First let's distinguish category:Jordanian war crimes and category:war crimes in Jordan. Do you refer to the first one or both?GreyShark (dibra) 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Specifically the first. But the second one doesn't exist, Black September was not a war crime.--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Just added a source on that.GreyShark (dibra) 19:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
And we are not talking about the whole event as a "war crime", but about the war crimes during the event.GreyShark (dibra) 19:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually its better off as 'terrorism' than as 'war crime'--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Terror acts during war period are in fact "war crimes".GreyShark (dibra) 19:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
But not when done unofficially. I mean members of the PLO doing terrorist attacks doesn't necessarily mean that the PLO did terrorist attacks. --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You are mixing up things i think - the Black September group, which operated "unofficially" on behalf of the Fatah was created after 1971. It was named after the Black September events in Jordan. The September 1970s violence however was initiated with Arafat's intention and orders.GreyShark (dibra) 19:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I know about the Black September group, but they acted after Black September not during.--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: After thorough researching it turned out to be correct, regarding Arafat. However, my research also did not show up a single claim about Jordanian war crimes.--Makeandtoss (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not insist on adding this cat to Black September with no proper sourcing. Will check on this.GreyShark (dibra) 18:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

..--Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Negev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arad. 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) 09:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War#Requested move 12 October 2015

Another RM started and has been ongoing; I invite you to improve consensus. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that "Palestine is an invader state"

You quoting me for implying you recognize the State of Palestine is one thing, but adding the wierd claim that "Palestine = invader state in ancient semitic" (Which I personally disagree about) is just defamation. I don't mind being in your user's page, it's nice to see someone dedicated a line in his user page for me, but please remove things I didn't say, for me someone who describe "State of Palestine" by alleged ancient semitic roots meaning "invader" is just dumb or hatefull. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No you didn't. It is a misunderstanding.GreyShark (dibra) 18:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arab Christians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transjordan. 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) 11:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please express your opinion on a different name for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015)

I have offered a new name: "2015 Palestinian unrest"
Explaination to this, regarding concerns brought up by other users is the the offer's section. Please express your opinion on this name.
There is no use answering me here, it's better to answer me here: talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015)#M. 2015 Palestinian unrest --Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 November

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

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) 00:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Renaming page

Hey! I was away for a while. By the way, some guys deleted a page created by me :( I want to inform you about the reason of the renaming. Like Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015), War in Afghanistan (2015–present), 2015 PKK rebellion should be named as Turkey–PKK conflict (2015–present). Kavas (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree to your name - it is very unspecific. Let's do an RFC or a rename.GreyShark (dibra) 07:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 November

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

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) 00:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your user page

Please stop using your userpage to mock others or to record their supposed downfall. This is explicitly not what userpages are for, see WP:POLEMIC. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OK!GreyShark (dibra) 06:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 November

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

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) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greyshark09/Archive_6&oldid=1084041699"