User talk:Axxxion

Wikipedia Edits that Violate Policy

I have started a discussion about your edits to the article "Russian military intervention in Syria" and why I think that they violate Wikipedia's policy. It can be found here: Talk:Russian_military_intervention_in_Syria#Wikipedia_Edits_that_Violate_Policy selfworm^Talk) 18:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You cannot remove POV dispute without discussion and then move the page to mix things up. You are pushing your own point of view and using Wikipedia as a tool. Referring to your Zapad 2017 exercise edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20000roads (talk • contribs) 22:21, 1 August 2017 (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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

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 Ariha. 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, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary samctions

Just a note to alert you that 2015 San Bernardino shooting is under discretionary sanctions, with a WP:1RR limit: All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II#Move portions to other pages?

Did you read the closing rationale? We should limit the article's scope to avoid original research from now on. --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you used simile unless it's sarcasm. Anyway, a source must explicitly mention "Cold War II" or related names, not narrowly Russia–US. --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Which makes me wonder if all the sources in the Cold War article explicitly mention "Cold War". Just sarcasm. On a more serious note, talking of terrorism, off-topic, i just meant that human nature tends to find its way through attempts to suppress it. Once you make an outright war look bad or even illegal, you get the much worse situation that we now have, where you cannot stop war because officially there is no war (who declared war in Syria?). Now each state in addition to an official army has another unofficial army of terrorists that do war by stealth. For war is the ultimate way to solve objective conflict in the human development such as overpopulation, lack of resources, poverty, pursuit of happiness and power, etc. Plus we have a slew of "security services" whose actual pursuit is to create maximum insecurity by stealth to maximise their share of a budget pie and political clout.Axxxion (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Just abide to consensus and closing rationale, okay? Also, cooperate with Hollth; I think he's done a better job moving portions than I can. If you oppose the rationale, talk to the closer, or create a newer discussion. --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please note that I had to revision-delete your summary to this edit which contained a gross BLP violation. Please do not do it again. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Rus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian. 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 January 2016 (UTC)

3RR violation

You just made a 3RR violation (4 reverts in less than 24 hours) on page Madaya, Syria. Also note that your edits on this page are covered by community sanctions on Syrian war, according to which only one revert allowed during 24 hours. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

But why is the article open to anonymous and newly registered users? Which makes it an easy prey for propaganda battles.Axxxion (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think that article should be semi-protected because of vandalism by IP and new accounts, please report it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. But this is not going to work because their edits are not vandalism and well-sourced. However, if you continue, you can be reported to WP:3RRNB or WP:ANI (community sanctions). My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Twitter now an RS to qualify as "well-sourced"?Axxxion (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You removed CNN [1], but it does not really matter. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

So, I made a report [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It does matter, as you appear not to look at and see what you speak of: the text and the source referring to CNN had been put by me and then i deleted a mere duplication thereof.

Madaya

I think you have been doing good work on the page but surely leaving the sentence 'The town has been used for anti-Assad propaganda..' , something like that, surely that can't remain. Its not npov. It reads like its written by RT or something.92.3.7.249 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on the Madaya page have now been undone by three users. You seem to have a certain point of view about a single event which you feel is necessary to write into the history of the town of Madaya, but the rules of Wikipedia are pretty clear that a few misattributed photos are not substantive to the town's history. You're more than welcome to create a separate page for this incident, where I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to vigorously contribute to. --Shawn.carrie (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please motivate your edits

Wikipedia is a cooperative project. Therefore, we motivate our article edits in the text entry field “Edit summary”, except the obviously minor and self-evident edits which we mark with a ‘m’ (‘minor’) in the space beneath the line for the edit summary.
Disagreements easily arise over article contents. There’s nothing wrong with such disageements, but they can only be settled in a polite and civil way if all editors declare their motives for edits on articles. On article Syria peace talks in Vienna, 14Nov2015,13:06, I’ve had to restore the article after an unmotivated edit of yours. On article Geneva Syria peace talks (2016), I’ve had to restore the article after unmotivated edits of yours on 4feb2016,13:24 and on 6Feb,14:03. It causes me work and trouble, which perhaps wouldn’t have been necessary if you had motivated those edits the first time.
Don’t now please give here, on THIS page, your arguments for or against this or that article edit: this is not the right place, article content disputes should be held on those article pages, via edit summaries, or on their article’s Talk pages. In that way, everyone interested in a specific article, now or in the future, can easily retrieve the discussions that are being or have been held over the article. In the future, please motivate your edits, not merely after someone begs for it but immediately. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My edits notes are sufficient.Axxxion (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As is clear from my edit comments, there are 2 general problems with your approach: you remove relevant and sourced material; write outright inventions, such as that statement "Lavrov CERTAINLY invited", or "conditions for talks", etc. Also you ostensibly source your inventions with off-line references to a Dutch newspaper. The only reason for doing so that I can think of, is to make it impossible to verify. Actually it is possible, as i have done once to debunk your inventions. I use the word "invention", as i find it difficult to call it POV-pushing per se: no obvious point is being promoted, essentially it is just nonsense with a detectable narcissistic slant.Axxxion (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I retrieved an edit of yours(of 2Feb) where you unmotivatedly reverted a motivated edit of mine, see here(9 Feb). That’s not cricket. I warn you now again: motivate please your substantial edits – most certainly when those are already obviously disputed. If you continue such non-cooperative, autocratic behaviour, I will have to report such behaviour to the Wikipedia community. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way: if you want to criticize my edits or whatever of my actions: fine. But it seems to me that the place to do that is on those specific article's pages (or their talk pages) for specific criticism/disputes, or on my talk page if you assume something general to be 'wrong' in my attitudes or approaches or whatever. (Don't discuss such issues (my 'faults' etc.) in this section, it is off-topic here, see section heading). --Corriebertus (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Syria peace talks in Vienna

Hello. You removed something from Syria peace talks in Vienna on 2 February with vague motivation. Please, read my question about that on Talk:Syria peace talks in Vienna#Staffan de Mistura. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pan–Orthodox Council

Thank you for creating Pan–Orthodox Council. I'm still trying to work through some of the changes made at the joint declaration article and will try and come back to that when I have time, but I wanted to thank you for creating that article. Will be interesting to see what happens. I know the author cannot be considered the most neutral authority on the topic, but a more recent source is here (ON THE GREAT COUNCIL OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH). I noticed that the documents will only be in Greek, Russian and French and nothing in English. I also noticed something on the joint declaration, but will pop that on the talk page of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth. I am not quite certain but I suppose the major documents will be available in English such as on the web site of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After all, most of its flock live in the Anglophone countries such as the US.Axxxion (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Returning to this some months later, I see that there is a big list of who attended at Pan-Orthodox Council, and that presumably the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate (pulling out at the last minute) meant it was all a bit anti-climactic? Is there a verdict yet among neutral commentators on what it all means? Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Carcharoth. I have updated some. But it is early days yet to know how it will play out. That said, the issue of the Crete docs per se is relatively minor. The ROC did not want to play ball with Phanar in June. But now the plot thickens even more as Phanar is moving to grant autocephaly to Ukraine. Very unpredictable at this stage as voices are being heard in the ROC to pre-empt and grant autocephaly themselves. If Phener acts first, it will be nuclear with Moscow.Axxxion (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reminder

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--MONGO 15:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:September 11 attacks for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. Talkpages aren't somewhere to present your views on how closely modern society resembles 1984. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

But could you explain why my edits were expunged by an admin, and then a very similar edit was allowed, but very poorly sourced and containing obvious mistakes?Axxxion (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

Katie^talk 20:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Kuznetsov deployment

Just didn't feel the text as was sounded right Hammersfan (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hammersfan, but the phrase is used by the source that you had provided.Axxxion (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because it's used by the source it doesn't mean we can't put it into our own words, especially if you feel that what is there doesn't sound right and you can come up with something you think is better without losing the meaning - in fact, that is good practice as it avoids the potential of being accused of plagiarism Hammersfan (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hammersfan, I was trying to make you elaborate on your re-phrasing. If you are familiar with the navy cant, would you say "set sail" sounds off-key when used with regard to a vessel, not passengers?Axxxion (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, I just felt the original wording didn't sound right, so I altered it, not for any purposes of making it sound more naval in tone, but simply because I didn't like the way it read when I read it. Hammersfan (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Axxxion. 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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Axxxion. 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)

Daraa offensives

Daraa offensive (February–June 2017) was a rebel-initiated offensive, with the aim of capturing the Manshiyah District of Daraa city. It ended with the rebel capture of 95 percent of the district. Daraa offensive (June 2017) is a currently ongoing Syrian Army-initiated offensive, with the aim of capturing the Palestinian refugee camp. So these are two separate offensives for which we have two separate articles. The UNRWA sentence Dera'a refugee camp is located north of Dera’a City is factually incorrect. Since its establishment 65+ years ago, it has actually become a residential district of Daraa city itself and is located in the east-central part of the town as seen here on the map [3]. The lead sentence of the Daraa offensive (June 2017) article says ...in the SOUTHERN half of Daraa city because Daraa city is currently bisected between a government-controlled north and rebel-controlled south, with the refugee camp district being just within the southern half portion of the city. Also, the Army attacked two other southern rebel-held districts of the city, and not just the Palestinian area. EkoGraf (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll think up of something and insert it into the background section. EkoGraf (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Syrian territories and PRODs

Thanks for the redirect. That's as good an outcome as any, I think, although something tells me it may be challenged. Just a quick point regarding the removal of the PROD tag - per WP:PROD anyone can remove that tag if they wish to contest the proposal. Ideally they'd put a reason in their edit summary (as Greyshark did), but they don't always do so. Either way, the idea is that they're saying that the deletion isn't "uncontroversial" as it should be for PROD to work, so then it's time to look at AfD or keeping the article. The tag that can't be removed is the AfD one, since that leads to the active discussion about the fate of the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

From Cianmarbo

While I understand that the article requires some more formatting, I fail to see why you're removing information I have added that clearly has utmost relevance, I also fail to see why you keep making incremental changes to changes I have made such as replacing "U.S. Intelligence Community" with "international intelligence community", as, if you do your research, will find that it was not only the United States that made assessments regarding the DPRK's nuclear programme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cianmarbo (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mikoyan MiG-29, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zoran Djordjevic (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) 11:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

3RR warning

Axxxion, you just violated WP:3RR at the Wagner Group page. I would please ask that you cancel your edit and continue discussing the issue on the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

See the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Axxxion reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: ). You may respond if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I see what you did there

Hi User:Axxxion. While I admire your verve (especially while you're being cited for "edit warring"), and certainly appreciate your apparent desire to see careful, considered and educated alternative views represented as other than lunatic conspiracy theory, I'm going to revert your "See also" deletions from Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. The politically-charged nature of this whole topic demands a softer approach. — JEREMY 23:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Please do not make edits when an issue is under discussion on the talk page, especially when the current consensus is against you and your edit violates that consensus. Such behavior can easily be construed as being disruptive, which I'm sure is not your intention, and disruptive editing can lead to being blocked from editing. Please do not continue in this manner and force me to report you to admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, pls stop distorting what is happening: I indicated above on this Talkpage what I see as a discrepancy between what the lede claims and what the article actually says. Address the issue in the relevant section of the Talk, do not convert into a different issue. I amnot making any edits: but YOU (i mean the clique of hatred-mongers who control this article) are stonewalling any constructive discussion of legitimate deficiencies of this article: See posts there that are blatantly obscene, insulting, obstructive and generally unproductive.Axxxion (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the "clique of hatred mongers" outnumbers you, so the consensus is against you. Furthermore, the discussion on the talk page is now over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on what: There is no discussion: just hatred-spewing. Ok. Am over too, apparently.Axxxion (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "hate mongers" -- in case you hat again. i have never seen such intolerance and hatred in my life!Axxxion (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Axxxion. 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)

Clarification regarding Yugoslav coup d'etat

Hello Axxxion. I just wanted to clarify that I have no problem on face value (assuming reliable sources are being used) with your additions to the subject article, just with your introduction of a different citation style from the one already used in the article. Both WP:FNNR and WP:CITEVAR apply here, and you are expected to maintain the citation style already in use in the article, and not introduce a new one. Use of a different citation style (bare references) imperils the GA-class of the article. Please show some respect for other editors and use the sfn template style if you wish to edit the article. It does not take much to learn how to do it, you can see how it is used in the article and emulate that. I am willing to demonstrate its use on one citation if that would be of value to you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You might have good faith ends in mind but your edits are objectively destructive. If there is sth wrong in style if citation, in YOUR opinion (I do not see any problem whatsoever) -- go ahead and fix it. I have no time to do research on such convoluted and contrived quibble.Axxxion (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:Peacemaker67, discuss on Talk, not here.Axxxion (talk) 12

45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Watch out for trolls on the Montenegrin article

see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montenegro_attempted_coup&action=history Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ethanbas. I know that all too well. The activity of that type ought to be expected from a newly registered editor Maximal123 , who has been extremely active in a destructive way exactly in the Russian equivalent article - ru:Участник:Maximal123. I hope (and indeed) expect that before long the Russ Wiki will be barred from any editing from Russia-based IPs (that would have to be extended to Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya, Tadjikistan, Armenia, and Ukr as well for obvious reasons). I reckon on your support.Axxxion (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oligarch (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) 18:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Nahum Eitingon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chekist

Nikolai Skoblin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Christopher Andrew

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Nahum Eitingon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chekist

Russian naval facility in Tartus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mikhail Bogdanov

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Israeli strikes

Its all a matter of notability. If the strikes were not really notable then we shouldn't have an article for each possible Israeli strike that took place during the years, when we could simply write them up in one sentence or two within the Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War article. EkoGraf (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian Church in Belgrade

Hello. Thanks for the thanks :) As for the reference: I know that Kljakić didn't write the feuilleton, but he apparently edited it [4], and that is what I wrote (edited, not authored). As for the page number, the specific Vol. 37 is located on page 27. I have it in my hand, that page is not numbered but the next one is 28. Take care. PajaBG (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-consensus

Сonsensus. Non-consensus.TaaniOk (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:UnteenthSense′s unethical behavior, and EW

Wagner Group

An issue has arisen at the Wagner Group article. Someone is constantly adding a "citation needed" tag in the lead, requesting citation for the sentence we both agreed to from before, calling the sentence too controversial. The sentence I am referring to is Others are of the opinion that ChVK Wagner is really a unit of the Ministry of Russian Ministry of Defence in disguise, which is used by the Russian government in conflicts where deniability is called for. I have removed the tag (two times) and stated in the edit summaries that cites shouldn't go in the lead (per WP policy) and that the sources (all 13 of them) are already in the main body of the article (1st section, 9th paragraph). But I got a feeling they will keep pushing the issue. So if you could also keep a watch on the article regarding this that would be great. The ones adding the tag are a newly-created account and an anonymous IP editor (which could possibly be the same person). EkoGraf (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

PS The guy also added a "citation needed" tag for a sentence in the main body that already had a reference. He literally put the tag next to the source. EkoGraf (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, EkoGraf. I think the article needs a semi-protection status, just like another Syria conflict-related article.Axxxion (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Someone has also been changing the "Sudan civil war" on the list of conflicts Wagner are involved to "South Sudan civil war", even though the source says Sudan, not South Sudan. EkoGraf (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Khasham

This article will need a bit of a rewrite I think. Because the Der Spiegel source you provided basically confirmed what SOHR earlier reported. That the PMCs weren't even in the "attacking" formations, but instead they were in a separate non-attacking group (guard duty at a weapons depot). Although Der Spiegel also says they died in the air-strikes, while SOHR says it was a booby-trapped explosion of a weapons depot. But the point is, they both state the PMCs were not even among those the US and Russian opposition allege were attacking the SDF/US forces. I will need to think about how to word this properly. If you have any suggestions please leave a message, thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

EkoGraf, Thanks. I think you ought to open a relevant thread on the article′s Talkpage. Entre nous: I believe you generally have a better grasp of the overall info and sources in that article than me, so I trust you on that.Axxxion (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I have rearranged the article since we got up to four or five different versions of the events. The text I rearranged I generally didn't change, but I did add the Syrian military's version of events (which wasn't included) and also I put the Spiegel/SOHR version in perspective (which I personally think is the most likely realistic version of events). Please make any changes if you feel are needed, but I think all of the claims/versions are now systematically arranged so there is no confusion. EkoGraf (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Russian–Syrian hospital bombing campaign

I would say so. Its more appropriate as a section in the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War article. EkoGraf (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sergei Skripal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boris Berezovsky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

Your edit 830308890 of Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal undid my revision 830306062. My revision undid your revision 830305268. My reason given for undoing your changes was your own argument quoted from the summary of revision 830284265. Your summary of 830308890 accuses me of uncivil behaviour, which I resent, and falsely claims that Norbert Röttgen is a cabinet level senior official. He last was one about six years ago. If you don't think your own argument was valid when applied to the content provided by other Wikipedians, myself excluded in case of 830284265, then why did you use that argument in the first place? I am not behaving uncivil - I applyied your own judgement against your own edit because your judgement generally appeared to make sense to me in the context of that article. In both of the two mentioned changes you also deleted a properly referenced passage containing a public diplomatic reaction by a current European head of government. I deem that position to be most senior and the statements therefore highly relevant and notable in the context of the article and the specific section. Replacing the information with less notable statements doesn't make sense to me. May I ask you to comment on the issue? Recdep (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Recdep::I may be off the mark about the exact status of Röttgen, but I think his quote was notable for two reasons: 1. It represents what lots of folk across Europe and in the UK think about the UK gov (and if you heard the debate in the House on Russia on 14th March, you could hear this issue being raised by a multitude of MPs time and again, as pretty much every one understands the inescapable link between criminal money and criminality). 2. His remark stands out, whereas the chorus of various RF statesmen is plainly uninteresting, as it is virtually uniform: "It is not us, as we do not need it it." Ok, this should be noted too, but we are not to catalog similar pronouncements of Putin′s appointees. The section needed a clean-up and trimming as well, which was further done by other editors, after my edits.Axxxion (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the Wiki article says he heads the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, about which the relevant article says it is a cabinet-level ministry. Could not care less, frankly. But his point is salient: the Brits′ hypocrisy and crookedness disgust everybody.Axxxion (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I do understand your arguments for including this particular quote, but I do not think they are valid.

1. Unless you can show that the quote is representative for EU countries' stance towards the UK government you can't just portray it as such in the article. No known source even claims that it is representative for his nation.

2. This weakens your previous argument to only include cabinet-level official responses - in favor of interestingness/"standing out". I don't think that's a good idea. Where do you draw the line? For example, would the statement of a Polish MP have to be included if it is particularily aggressive towards Russia? The problems surrounding that question are one reason I had subscribed to your seniority argument in the first place. Paradoxically, you describe the quote as standing out and being representetive. Which one is it? And which source corroborates that view?

My arguments are:

a. Roettgen is most certainly not a cabinet-level senior official. He cannot issue representative statements on behalf of his country. The section is about official responses.

b. Quoting that particular statement is very selective. You are trying to illustrate that the opinions on this topic are more heterogenous. That's alright, but you will need another source for that.

c. Parliamentarians' varying views on the handling of organized crime in the UK should not be part of the section about official responses to the described incident.

d. The quote is out of context.

I arrive at the conclusion that the quote should not be included in that particular section. If its relevance and notability can be sufficiently established using an additional source, you should create a new section for the debate about organized crime in the UK and the suspected links to the Russian state. Do you agree?

You have presented your reasoning for including the Roettgen quote but you haven't explained why you have removed an important part of the statements by Merkel in your revisions 830305268 and 830308890. The respective edit summaries don't provide a reason either. Please explain. Recdep (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Recdep::I do not see any substance that would underpin your opinions and conclusions: you say the man is not federal-level. Why? The sources say he is. Merkel′s stance is clear from a joint statement issued a few days later. The relevance and import of Röttgen′s remark is shown in the source cited: This sentiment is shared by all continental governments, who are not going to do anything substantial to protect Uk from alleged Russian banditry, while the UK gov itself keeps enjoying billions of stolen cash stashed in the City and providing hospitality/protection to thousands of Russian crooks, many of whom are convicted/wanted criminals like Khodorkovsky (hatred of UK in Russia is absolutely universal, altho for entirely different reasons amongst the elite vs the hoi polloi). More to the point, Germany′s opinion generally is hardly relevant as it is not a country involved (besides, it is still not a fully independent state, essentially under Uk/US occupation): but then we would need to remove all other individual EU countries′ reactions, which is Ok by me, especially now that we have a separate Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. If you want to continue discussion you should go to the relevant Talk page.Axxxion (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia–United Kingdom relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Help 2018 Douma chemical attack, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Also, please note that the article is subject to community discretionary sanctions. Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four 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. See [5] - MrX 🖋 17:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)