Jump to content

User talk:Newsboy39: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 79: Line 79:
|imagesize=50px
|imagesize=50px
}}
}}

== General sanctions notice ==


{{Ivmbox
|'''''Please read this notification carefully,''' it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

A [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]] for pages related to the [[Syrian Civil War]] and the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]. The details of these sanctions are described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''one [[Help:Reverting|revert]] per twenty-four hours [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]].

[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|here]]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg
| icon size = 50px}} <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 23:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:41, 29 August 2016

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that very much. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4 reverts within 2 days on Syrian civil war map

You made 4 reverts in 2 days on the Syrian civil war map.. That is twice two reverts within 24-hour. This including one revert you undid edits of 3 different users. You are well informed about the max 1 revert per 24 hours rule and the Syrian Civil War and ISIL general sanctions for it so please keep to this. Niele~enwiki (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niele~enwiki I did it to inform other users to follow the rule of WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Many users keep using self-published Twiiter posts of individuals as sources even though they are not reliable. My intention to revert them was in good faith towards them and I did it to maintain the rules and accuracy of the map. I'm sorry if I crossed the limit. I don't ever intend to do it again, but it will help if a note was added in the module of the map saying not to use self-published Twitter posts. Newsboy39 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're pushing you're personal stance that every twitter user is unreliable, while it is long accepted by the vast majority of users editing the map, that some twitter users can be proven reliable as a source according to the rules. 75% of all edits the last year where done on basis of reliable found/proven twitter users. But even than the source in this is 'Amaq News' wich is the official news outlet of Daesh. Not some random twitter user.
"Amaq news is used constantly under rule 'b': A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes).--Niele~enwiki (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can undo edits of different users, as long as you do it with one revert. However, you made more than one revert within 24-hours, with other users intervening, so you should reverse your most recent reversion. Note that informing other users to follow the rules is not an 1RR exemptions. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1RR Warning for Battle of Sirte

You should be made aware that all ISIL-related articles are under a general WP:1RR, which means, you can not make more than 1 revert in less than 24 hours. So, I ask you to please cancel your last edit and calmly discuss the issue at the talk page. Otherwise, I will have to report you at an administrator's noticeboard for breaking 1RR, this generally leads to a block. EkoGraf (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, its not a threat, its an obligation per Wikipedia's policy that editor's need to be warned when breaking 1RR or 3RR. A hostile attitude like yours towards any fellow editor is not really helpful nor productive per WP:GOODFAITH or WP:CIVIL. Second, I am currently writing a reply to your message at the article's talk page and have been writing it for the last 20 minutes (so untrue that I am not willing to discuss). Third, I have discussed every issue that exist at every article or editor talk page that ever existed between me and any other fellow editor and we always found a compromise, so I really don't know where your extremely negative attitude towards me comes from (read Wikipedia:No personal attacks). EkoGraf (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please stop with your personal attacks on my talk page. If quoting WP policy and warning you of them are threats and a bossy attitude in your opinion than I cann't do anything about that. I see you have already been warned by another user of breaking 1RR (twice) at another ISIL-related article but you are unwilling to accept the 1RR policy. You should follow what both of us are advising you. EkoGraf (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My reply at the article's talk page is finished. EkoGraf (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Battle of Sirte (2016). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NgYShung huh? 11:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Najran

Hi could you create a page about the Battle of Najran ? Regards. Panam2014 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't know how to. What batttle of Najran are you talking about? Is it about the revent conflicts between Houthis and Saudi Arabia? There's already a page for it. If it's a past battle then please ask someone else, I don't know how to create a page nor do I edit historical articles. Newsboy39 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarablus

Hey, thanks but I don't think the was made by me. :) --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really sorry. It was another user who had a similar name. Newsboy39 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sirte Image

The picture you removed from Battle of Sirte (2016) article has been a captured by a frined of mine who is fighting there and first posted in the offical Al-Bunyan Al-Marsos facebook page. I asked premison from him to use it and he agreed. Thanks :) --LibyaDragoon (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibyaDragoon You've uploaded it under the wrong license. In the license you claimed that it was your own work. However you yourself admit it is of someone else. You cannot claim to be your work if it was taken by someone else. In the license you should have instead said that you obtained permission for using it from the author/photographer of the image. An image with the wrong license can be deleted by admins who check the copyright. I advice you to immediately correct the license. Once you do I'll put it back in the article. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Mosul offensive (2016)

On 26 August 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mosul offensive (2016), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Jarabulus offensive (2016)

On 28 August 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jarabulus offensive (2016), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notice

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Katietalk 23:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]