User talk:Erlbaeko

Hello, Erlbaeko and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Joyson Noel Holla at me! 18:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hey there. I'm glad to see that you're moving files to Commons. In the future though, when you place the template in noting that the file is now on commons, please don't take out the {{Information}} template. I fixed it for you in this edit. Keep up the good work! Sven Manguard Wha? 12:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. :) Erlbaeko (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Rocket Khan al Asal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have updated the description and the purpose. Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russia today is not a reliable source, it is a state controlled (not just funded) media with patisan views and a notorious biased coverage ont he Syrian civil war.

Even other reliable sources recognize Russia Today as biased Kremlin newsite. Sopher99 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the edit summary, I know RT represent the other point of view. That does not mean they are not reliable. Please remember, that editing from a neutral point of view, requires all significant views. Especially, when presenting the government claims they must be allowed as a reference. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-550936

http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-host-tv-talk-show/story?id=15438718#.UAQ8p45TM04

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47007046/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/anonymous-gets-facts-wrong-netflix-boycott/#.UAQ8zI5TM04 (see 8th paragraph)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/17/world-tomorrow-julian-assange-wikileaks Here is a bit of evidence I was able to retrieve in under five minutes.

have Russia today said that stuff they say the rebels stole is linked to the ghouta attacks ? you are dragging in tangential stuff from unreliable sources. Sayerslle (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RT said in March 2013: "In fact, the Syrian government said in December that Syrian rebel forces plundered supplies of fluoride gas." I have no reason to doubt that the Syrian government said that, and that is obviously a relevant statement for all chemical attacks in Syria. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so you are the one linking this Russia today story directly to ghouta? it seems to me you are trying to drag in anything - what has this story to do with ghouta? who is linking this story to ghouta? Sayerslle (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also you are writing on khan al assal with sana and Russia today? ffs. I dunno - this is why wp is up against it imo - serious people interested in politics -why would they look at wp when rank propagandists rubbish its pages? Sayerslle (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have edited on the Khan al-Assal attack. I saw you put the NOW article back in. I will explain why I removed it tomorrow. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

don't bother - I know exactly why you edit how you edit. do you read brown moses blog at all? , or just sana and Russia today? [1] - you think, like KGB Putin-Lavrov that the Saudis/turks/anybody but assad regime, was behind ghouta? hahaSayerslle (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record; I have explained why I removed the NOW article here. Cheers, Erlbaeko (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the one revert rule which is enforced for the page, which states that an editor must not perform more than One Revert on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Sopher99 (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sopher99 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I have only put back the claim you removed, so please finish the discussion here before removing it again.Erlbaeko (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability had a number of problems that need to be fixed before it goes "live". Rather than edit warring, please discuss on the talk page so we can develop a reasonable improvement to the article. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added it. If you remove it again, please describe why on the talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sources I added are sufficient. Please, comment on this discussion if you disagree. Erlbaeko (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are just edit warring without addressing the issues, are you open to a third opinion? VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to a discussion on the talk page, if you have any reasonable arguments. Just do not use WP:BRD as an excuse for reverting well sourced information, simply because you don't like the changes. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adra (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) 08:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links fixed. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion on the talk page counts as 'discussion' for the purpose of the tag remaining - and Russia Today is not a RS - are you at all aware f Russias position - putins propaganda is a machine for lies and I believ he has admitted as much over Crimea etc - it is not RS - who would read Wikipedia for impartial a nd informative material on politics though? the biased dross and pov is winning out wouldn't you say? Sayerslle (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of (most of) the western medias position? To find the facts I use RS from both sides. Even if you don't like it, both RT and ITAR-TASS are WP:RS Erlbaeko (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'to find the facts' ha ha ! do you believe your pro assad regime pov is not utterly evident? you are wrong if you think you are disguising your edits as impartial. . where does it say Russia today is RS? 'western medias position' is hardly pro-rebel - btw , am I being stupid but how come the UNHRC report says the khan al asal sarin bears the same chemical profile as used in ghouta but I thought the UN didn't get to analyse the khan al asal attack? Sayerslle (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, show me a WP community consensus saying RT (or ITAR-TASS for that matter) is not a WP:RS. They are both major news agencies with bureaus around the world. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erlbaeko,

I removed the prods you placed on Russia Today (disambiguation), Russia Today TV (disambiguation), and Rusiya Al-Yaum (disambiguation). The WP:PROD policy says that it cannot be used on redirects. If you want to delete a redirect, you need to start a discussion at WP:RFD. However, for Russia Today (disambiguation), that seems to be a proper redirect that should exist per the instructions at WP:DABNAME. The other two redirects don't seem very useful to me, but they still need to be discussed at WP:RFD if you want them to be deleted. Calathan (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are redirected because they are not in use. I was just trying to clean up a bit. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, "PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages", ref. WP:PROD, but I guess I should have removed the redirect first. See also WP:G6. Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Russia Today (disambiguation), you could have left it as a disambiguation page and then prodded it. However, as I pointed out, it is a good redirect, so it shouldn't be deleted at all. For Russia Today TV (disambiguation) and Rusiya Al-Yaum (disambiguation), those have always been redirects (despite their names, they have never actually been disambiguation pages). Removing the redirect and then prodding them would be circumventing the intent of the prod policy, so that wouldn't be acceptable. None of the three pages qualify for deletion under any of the criteria listed under WP:G6. Calathan (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I read the WP:DABNAME a little closer, and agree to keep Russia Today (disambiguation). I may use WP:RFD to delete the others. Thanks for the explanation. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste moves are inappropriate on Wikipedia. To make rearrangement you wanted you had to make Russia Today with {{db-move|Russia Today (disambiguation)|title is ambiguous}}. Anyway, now please refrain from changing these redirects until RfD discussion for Russia Today is closed, as required per WP:EDITATAFD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not cut-and-past, but the move was based on the old version of Russia Today (disambiguation). See Help:Disambiguation for correct use of disambiguation pages. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, when you copy content of one page, and paste it to another, it is "copy-paste move". The best thing you can do right now is to copy current content of Russia Today to Russia Today (disambiguation) and revert Russia Today to this revision, so that if RfD discussion ends with disambiguate outcome, Russia Today redirect would be deleted and Russia Today (disambiguation) would be moved to "Russia Today" title. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have reverted it. If Russia Today (Information Agency), Russia Today TV (disambiguation) and Rusiya Al-Yaum (disambiguation) are deleted, it may be ok to keep Russia Today (disambiguation). The main point is to clean up a bit. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW we normally make redirects from "xxx (disambiguation)" to "xxx" if it is indeed a disambiguation page. This helps avoiding problems when wikilink to disambiguation page is desired. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Cornellier. Erlbaeko, thanks for creating Al-Bayadah!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for creating this. It's notable because it's a populated place, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This needs more content.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Cornellier (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Kafr Zita chemical attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VDC. 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) 09:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
This is your only warning - do not attempt to WP:GAME the 1RR restriction on Syrian war articles again as you did here and here. VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VQuakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I reverted a bold edit to previous consensus, and explained why in the edit summary. Why don't you participate in the discussion to reach a consensus instead of just re-reverting. You are experienced enough to understand the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Erlbaeko (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this [2] I believe you just violated the 1RR restriction that is in effect on the article. Please self revert. Or we take it to WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, that's actually your third or even fourth revert, on an article that is under 1RR restriction. Tell you what, I'll give you a few hours, then it's WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to wait. Just, go ahead. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but that was Rejected (See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#Erlbaeko) Erlbaeko (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks to you too Kudzu1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but that was also Rejected (See: User:Erlbaeko reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: No action)) Erlbaeko (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re [4], there is no requirement to wait for the SPI to be closed before reverting block evading edits - they are two separate issues (and SPIs are not frequently used for IP-hopping anyways). This is particularly true since the editor admits they are evading the block. Can you please review your reversion? VQuakr (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re [5]. I would appreciate it if you DID NOT refer to my edits as "vandalism". That is both a false description of their nature and insulting to boot. If you persist in doing so I will take that as a personal attack, see WP:NPA.

And it's up to you to get consensus for inclusion, which is clearly lacking, not the other way around.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. Blanking whole sections as you did with the motivation section here, in a situation where there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page and clearly no consensus to remove it all, is in my opinion vandalism, but I agree that it is not vandalism according to the vandalism policy. I was not aware of it then, but it states; "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

Regarding consensus, yes I know I need consensus to add or modify material in articles. Just keep in mind that you need consensus to remove material from articles, and that long standing material is consensus according to the consensus policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, warning other editors for editwarring whilst you are reverting is not good. Canvassing is not good either. Stop now. bobrayner (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the notes on the edit warring noticeboard, a warning before reporting is the correct procedure. Regarding canvassing; the canvassing guideline states "in general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." My notification was to the user who introduced the ^{[unreliable source?]}-template I opposed, so that should be perfectly acceptable according to the guideline. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ghouta chemical attack". 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 13 June 2015. 

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.

Thanks again, Volunteer Marek. That report was closed before I even was able to respond. My appeal (see below) was also rejected, so I guess you were right this time. Please, sign future comments on my talkpage. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Erlbaeko reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Erlbaeko (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blanking whole sections as Volunteer Marek did with this revert (the whole Motivation section as shown here), in a situation where there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page (see this, this and this discussion) and clearly no consensus to remove it all, is imo obvious vandalism, which are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR/1RR. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're welcome to your opinion on it being vandalism, but per the vandalism guidelines, it's not. There's an ongoing dispute, and you should all leave that section be and decide what needs to be done via consensus and the dispute processes rathre than persistently removing it and adding it. only (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I accept that I violated the 1 revert per 24 hours rule (by 8 minutes I believe). If blanking whole sections is not vandalism, I will not revert section blanking like that as vandalism again. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please read this notification carefully:
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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Erlbaeko,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Khaled al-Saleh should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaled al-Saleh .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, mikeman67 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you mention the amount of time you were under 24 hours on your second revert, as if that mattered. You are not entitled to a revert every 24 hours plus a few minutes. I mentioned this to you back on May 11, but you might have missed it. This is mentioned in the policy as well at WP:3RR: "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." To be clear, in the future reverting a second time in just over 24 hours will likely result in another trip to the edit warring noticeboard. VQuakr (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, I know I am not automatically entitled to a revert every 24 hours plus a few minutes, and no, I did not miss your warning on 11 May. I even replied to you, and explained that "I reverted a bold edit to previous consensus, and explained why in the edit summary." But I have noticed that you are not so familiar with the previous consensus term, ref. diff. I replied to you here, but maybe I should have made myself clearer.

Some quotes from the consensus policy.

• "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies."
• "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion."
• "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".

It is the last part of the last sentence "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" that is called "previous consensus". So, yes I believe my novel "previous consensus" method of edit warring, as you described it here, are perfectly in line with the consensus policy, even if I will call it to "revert to previous consensus". It is also in line with the edit warring policy, as long as I explain why I reverted it in the first place, and then try my best to resolve any further disagreements through discussion. I admit that I can be better to start discussion, and I may even reconsider how long a discussion can go on without progress, but when that discussion result in "no consensus", I believe I can revert your or other editors attempt to remove well source material, once every 24 hours + a few minutes, for as long as I like.

But I was wrong when I was calling "blanking whole sections" against consensus, for vandalism. At least according to the vandalism policy. In fact I didn't even know about the vandalism policy, so maybe I am wrong here too. But keep in mind the behavioral guideline about Gaming the system. It states "Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden" (my emphasis). So, maybe another trip to the edit warring noticeboard, or maybe the administrators' noticeboard, is the best way to find out? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erlbaeko, I hope you can come back and productively participate in the Ghouta chemical attack mediation. Your past behavior is being used as an excuse for some editors to not participate in the mediation. Whether the mediation is accepted or successful, avoiding edit warring and achieving consensus are the important goals to strive for. Mnnlaxer (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mnnlaxer, I will participate in the mediation, but the process is new to me. I noticed that the chairperson said that it is for content issues only, so if some editors don't want to participate, that is fine by me. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Ghouta chemical attack, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee. 

I don't know if you're willfully misunderstanding me but I will assume good faith. Please be BRIEF, be SUCCINCT, use your own words and DESCRIBE the sources like the examples I posted, e.g. "Document B is written by Person A." Andrevan@ 01:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan:, you asked "what sources support the content with specific quotes and citations", and asked me to "focus directly on the sources which underpin the statements you want to have in the article". I added both the statements and the sources I like to keep in the article, to the discussion. Ref. old revision, which I see you have removed. What am I missing here? Do you want me to describe every source that has been added to the section for the last two years? Erlbaeko (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to specifically, in your own words, describe the sources which are in dispute here. Not the article text, not the statements, no inline or footnote references. An English sentence "the statement about speculation about blah bla was sourced to a July 3 article in CNN." In a few sentences only. Andrevan@ 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Ok, but I don't believe the dispute is about the sources. I am fine with using all of them, including the one Mnnlaxer have suggested. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a few of the comments on the mediation talk page, "The initiator(s) of this mediation can provide any reasonable text they want be included, with references. However, the most important thing is sourcing. The reliable secondary RS must show that the theory is a "significant minority view" and therefore should be included." "I believe that sources should not be twisted, nor the bar for truly reliable sources lowered to include the likes of self-published articles, Russian and Syrian propaganda, and conspiracy blogs, to accommodate the conspiracy theory..." Andrevan@ 21:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: I believe we all mostly agree to that, and I believe the dispute is more about removal of material, than it is about adding new material. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take the blame for any confusion getting this mediation started, as I left the description of the dispute so open-ended. However, I think this section of the talk page fairly clearly outlines the background to the mediation. Have you read it @Andrevan:? I will continue to work to add sources we can talk about. I am confused by your citation of My very best wishes and Kudzu1 comments on the talk page. Their comments present only one side of the dispute. The revision history and talk page clearly shows many examples of reasonable text and solid sources being added to the article, to be rejected with vague waves to policies. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll be able to influence MVBW's behavior. That's just how they roll. Best to just deal with it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may not, but the mediator or the chairperson are. If you are able to deal with it, ok, but I believe there is a reason behind the agreement prosess. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: agreement. That is correct and a reason to encourage MVBW to comment. Even if they are not formally a party, informally they will be obliged to honor the agreement if they take part in the discussion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnnlaxer: I see your point. Do you think it is time to create a draft page for the motivation section? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The other side is not going to suggest anything for the rebel motivation part. Maybe @Darouet: will give it a shot when he is available. I'm still not sure there should be a long Motivation section similar to what had existed at the article. I think start with one (or at the most two) sentences describing the opposition's motivation. Add qualifying clauses or sentences to show many people don't agree (DUE). Then we can discuss a proposed Motivation section as a whole and whether it should be stand-alone or not, how long should it be, etc. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnnlaxer: I am thinking something like this. User:Erlbaeko/sandbox It is mostly based on the old text, but I have removed the most fringe teories... Erlbaeko (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ping, I'm watching this page. I can't support the opening introductory sentence. Although true, the writing isn't encyclopedic. There is also a problem with only listing reasons the regime didn't have a motive along with one reason why the opposition did have a motive. "Rebels had a motive" is still a minority view of the mainstream English-language sources I've seen. Perhaps there isn't a good case to make for the motivation of the regime to use chemical weapons in Ghouta, but that just shows the weakness of writing a section on motivation. I'm leaning towards putting motivation, some evidence, and prominent figures who believe some faction of the opposition launched the chemical attack in a section at the end of the article. It will be easiest to put that material in context there in order to satisfy DUE.

Ok, thanks. I will try to improve the opening sentence, but if the Syrian governmet didn't have any reasonable motive, well, then that is what we should report. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't spend time on it right now. First task is propose a text for rebel motivation that could be accepted by the parties. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your current direction is going to produce results. Are you willing to work on a section for the end of the article on the entire false flag idea? Opposition motivation would only be a sentence or two in the section. More important is describing some evidence and listing prominent supporters. We have to be brief to satisfy our critics (even though providing context with more text is more important than the size of the content, it will still have to be short), I'm thinking three solid paragraphs. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is so much information about that false flag idea, but there is notable people that is questioning if Assad had any rational motive, and I see that as more important than describing that the rebels may have a motive. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds fine, with the addition of notable people questioning the regime's guilt based on evidence other than motivation. I'll put something together tonight. I know false flag has a very negative, fringe, conspiracy theory connotation, but that's what an opposition chemical attack on their supporters is, so we might as well go with it. If you can think of a better section name that encompasses what you want to include, great. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Motivation and timing" included in the “Evidence” section may be a solution. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last try[edit]

I am sorry I put "Motivation section" in the Mediation request instead of just "Motivation for the attacks". Motivation is mentioned throughout the article and it will continue to be a part of it after the mediation. We can deal with your concerns in the mediation if you choose to participate, which I hope you will. The only thing I don't see happening is a separate Motivation section, due to the other editors involved, including me, thinking that motivation has too much coverage right now, especially claims of civil war participants and supporting governments. You've put a lot of good work into the article and I'm sure you will continue to. I just hope to have you on board for the changes that will come out of the mediation. It serves no one if after a consensus is achieved in mediation, someone not involved in the mediation edits the article in opposition to that consensus. The easiest way to deal with that is to have as many editors involved in the mediation as possible. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am not going to be a part of any compromise that will reduce the whole motivation-topic to a few sentence in a false-flag operation section. The questionable motivation and timing, if regime forces were responsible, have been covered in multiple high-quality sources, and have been a part of the article since EkoGraf added it the day after the attack. Ref. diff and diff Erlbaeko (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refrain from editing the Ghouta chemical article while the Mediation is ongoing. Andrevan@ 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, I admit that on of my, not-so-well-formulated, arguments during the mediation was a little low on the hierarchy of disagreement diagram, but I was speaking candidly, and even if I wasn't actually joking, it wasn't meant literally either. (And it was not meant to you). Erlbaeko (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2235, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://un-report.blogspot.com/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Use of chemical weapons in the Iraqi Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bagdad. 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) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By making a second revert right outside the 24hr restriction you are pretty clearly indicating that you are trying to WP:GAME the system and are putting your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing Wikipedia on display.

This is acerbated by

• the fact that you've been reverted by more than one user.
• the burden to provide reliable sources, as you yourself noticed, is on you, not those who wish to remove your unreliably sourced text.

Consider this a warning for whatever relevant sanctions (edit warring, discretionary, ANI) are relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. You need consensus to remove long standing sourced material, and a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. When I avoid making two reverts within 24hr, and are trying my best to build consensus on the talk page, I am following the system, not gaming it. Maybe you should read the consensus policy again? Erlbaeko (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is neither true nor is this material "long standing" nor is it sourced nor is your reply relevant.

I mean... you couldn't even wait 1 freakin' hour before the 24 hours expired to revert. If that's not trying to game the 1RR restriction I don't know what is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is true, but I have been wrong before (once I think). Anyway, how "long standing" do it have to be, to be long standing for you? I am not sure of the exact date, but the Ras al-Ayn attack in October 2013 have been in the article for over a year. Ref. old revision from 15 August 2014. And it is source, by two sources, even if you don't like Russian sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You are slow-editwarring on this page. I have collected five diffs where you have reverted the removal that has now been removed by three different editors. Further reversion without gaining consensus will be reported to WP:ANEW. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh^Talk 17:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you do here is highly problematic. This page suppose to be edited by uninvolved admins. In addition, I did not edit this subject for more than a week, so why are you doing this now? Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorized on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, which you have been editing. It means that any uninvolved administrator 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, even on a first offence. It is only effective if it is logged here, and I inform whoever I want. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @My very best wishes: He also did this to me. I thought it was like a DS notification. Is that not the case? If not I have a major issue with it. Jbh^Talk 19:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this subject area is different from standard DS because it was imposed by community. I asked an appropriate administrator to clarify if Erlbaeko was acting correctly. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, the log page seems to be a 'bigger' deal than a typical {{Ds/alert}} which is not logged on a separate page. I will be interested in what the admin has to say and expect Erlbaeko to self revert on that page if his edit was not proper. Jbh^Talk 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you two should read it. The message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's suppose to be informational only, but here it's pretty obvious it's being used in an attempt to intimidate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you were mostly informed due to your claim that you did not know. Ref. diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been true for me, but it's not true for MVBW and Jbhunley.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have I said they have claimed not to be aware of it. You did that, even if you have been reporting users for breaking the 1RR rule on this topic. Ref. diff. Anyway, it still have to be logged here to be effective. Now it is. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... There was a big edit notice about 1RR when I made my one (1) edit - a revert - to the page. I would feel better about the whole 'informational' thing if it had not come from someone who has been engaged in a slow edit war against multiple editors on that page but a properly placed DS notice in such a case does not stretch my AGF enough to matter. Jbh^Talk 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Remedies, the presence of that template (the big edit notice about 1RR when you edit the page) is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "The remedies mirror those of WP:ARBPIA", so I don't think are meant to be any more serious than arbitration imposed ones. Almost everyone involved in the page Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been notified plus, including at least one administrator and the user who submitted the proposal. In theory anyone can notify anyone for no reason. In practice the use of this template has been used mainly by admins, and to warn them of the sanctions implicitly implies that the receiver of the notification is likely to fall foul of them. It is hard to tell when it's being used to genuinely help/warn, when it's being used to intimidate and when it's being used so that 'the next infraction' will lead to harsher punishment. To my mind, the problem is the notification and the fact it can be used by anyone for any reason. Banak (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, this is usually easy to tell if a warning has been properly issued. While giving a warning one must provide a recent diff that has been a reason for the warning (excluding cases when this is plainly obvious). While giving me a warning Erlbaeko did not provide any diffs showing any current problems with my editing in this subject area. He could not do it because I did not edit these pages during more than a week. Such warnings, and especially if they are permanently logged on a sanction page (as in this case), do not serve any useful purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A diff is needed? May I ask where thus is implied? Most uses I've seen have been like this [6]. Banak (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you are giving was a proper notification because: (a) it was made by an unvivolved admin, and (b) the user who received notification was heavily involved in editing this subject area at the time of notification. None of that was the case here. Basically, it must be clear for everyone why someone had received a notification. Here is policy you asked about. It tells: "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.". My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to notice only the part of the policy you like. That paragraph also states "Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict." Erlbaeko (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was said about standard WP:AE warnings that do not require logging. Once again, I ask you to remove your notice on the logging page - if you want me not to comment about this episode in a future. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether you comment about this episode in a future or not. You have been notified, and it has to be logged to be effective. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Why not just take Erlbaeko to ANI if you think they did wrong or to AN to clarify how and by whom notices should be given and logged. I am curious about this too.

Below I asked them to self notify and log as a sign of good faith that they were not trying to use the notices to get the upper hand in a dispute (ie thinking by placing people on the log page they would be subject to sanctions that he could try to avoid by 'not having a logged notice'.)(No response yet.) I really doubt it would make a difference when it comes to handing out sanctions but it would at least be polite. It does not do much about whatever stigma you feel about being on the log page, which I can identify with, but my thought is it requires administrative action to remove logged warnings since we have yet to establish whether what was done is proper or even OK. Jbh^Talk 15:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this episode alone worth opening an ANI thread. Erlbaeko knows what he/she is doing. This is a contributor with a lot of experience on-wiki. His first edit from this account was creation of a new article [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been notifying people of sanctions you obviously are aware of them. It might go a long way in confirming good faith to self-notify and log it. You can see where I did a similar thing here. Jbh^Talk 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to self-notify. Take it to ANI, if you like. Now, please stay away from my talk page (unless you have something else to notify me about). Erlbaeko (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I have already been notified, see above, and it is logged. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.. I see it up there. I struck part of my comment above. PS Thank you for the message on my talk page letting me back here. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 01:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erlbaeko and Sunray: - would either of you mind if we removed Erlbaeko's section entries on the mediation talk page where motivation is not mentioned? I find the many sections distracting and confusing. -Darouet (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted them and changed the last section a bit. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ghouta_chemical_attack#Overall_review_of_motivation_in_the_article. Ok? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to explain the reason why I reverted the changes you made to the infobox for the Ongoing Iraq War without first discussing it on the talk page. Normally, I'm all for following the rules of this site, but the topic of the ongoing conflict with ISIL has become a hot button issue here on Wikipedia. Every conspiracy nut, anti-government activist and opinionated but uneducated person out there has been trying to edit the articles related to the issue, resulting in overly biased articles that have become difficult or impossible to change into a proper encyclopedic entry. The fact that there are few people online that don't have a strong opinion on the matter only complicates things further. Even the talk pages have become battlegrounds for opposing viewpoints on the matter. As tempers flare and patience wears thin, what starts out as simple discussions or debates quickly degenerates into heated arguements and exchanges of insults. Consensus is rarely reached, and even then it almost never lasts. I have tried multiple times to participate in the discussions, but every time I do, I end up leaving frustrated and unsatisfied. I've even been insulted on multiple occasions. Still, I can't leave this articles alone, as I cannot in good conscience leave articles so full of bias alone. I am someone who firmly believes that fact should always take precedence over opinion, and that editors should not let their personal biases and eccentricities effect their edits. Still, I'm only human. I can only take so many heated arguments and insult exchanges. Thus, for the sake of keeping my nerves and sanity, I try to avoid the talk pages on articles related to this topic whenever possible. The discussions are becoming more trouble than they are worth. This is why I am so hesitant to join in discussions on talk pages on articles related to this topic. Anasaitis (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries. I have the same experience from editing contentious issues related to the Syrian Civil War. Just take it easy, try to work out disputes through discussion, and be sure that you understand the consensus policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take Corbin Bleu and Madison Pettis off my refrigerator right now! --Allygggggg (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghouta chemical attack. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
2 identical reverts in 25 hours is gaming the 1RR in place on the article, as you surely are aware by this point. Please self-revert. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have explained the consensus policy to you before. It's here. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. VQuakr (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Are you saying the consensus policy is irrelevant? Erlbaeko (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Your perception of WP:CON is not a valid reason to edit war, ever. This is directly quoted from the policy in the warning template above, and again in my previous reply. Revert rule exemptions are intentionally extremely narrow; you can review them here. VQuakr (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't play games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy. It is strictly forbidden. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko: Would you be able to explain why you think that there was consensus to add that material on motivation to the article? Sunray (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Here. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Erlbaeko reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, a "slugfest" is a colloquial term for a sporting event, particularly baseball, in which the offense on both sides is much stronger than the defense. As a result, the game is determined by who can score more and is characterized by aggressive play. Applied to the mediation section, I was attempting to say that devolving to a "hit them, they hit back" all-out airing of grievances would be unproductive. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Taza Khurmatu

added a link pointing to RT

Use of chemical weapons in the Iraqi Civil War

added a link pointing to RT

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we change it to 50.8985197°N 4.483012°E and 50.8974438°N 4.4840848°E, using the WSJ-article as the source?

Regarding the Zaventum Airport bombing, I believe that is original research. What you are doing is creating information that is not referenced. I don't believe that should be done. A diagram would be an excellent idea, however. I made a more detailed comment on the article talk page but thought you might want to think about it more. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By undoing the merges to ISIL Brussels terror cell you have created an exact duplicate of the information in two places. I don't see you discussing your unmerging activity at the Main article talk page. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you merged the pages despite of a merge discussion with no consensus to merge, I actually think you can clean up after yourself. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Najim Laachraoui the lead paragraph "one of the two suicide bombers at the Brussels Airport" or "one of the two suicide bombers at Brussels Airport"? "The" or no "the"? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to remove every town on the Syria Map that does not have a non-map reliable source explicitly stating which faction controls the town, 3 out of every 4 towns on this map would vanish. Removing these towns would ruin the map. Please, I strongly urge you to put back those towns on the map, because if we followed the standard you want to use for the map, the map would disappear. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not going to removed 3 out of 4 villages, but if a village is on or close to the frontline, I will removed it if is not sourced. Feel free to re-add them, but do provide a source. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Mathsci. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do that again and please assume good faith. There is a new map. If you want a new map for the infobox, please create one yourself either here or on commons. It is quite hard recuperating base maps: I did it tile by tile. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the map yesterday. Maybe you need to update the cache on your browser to see it. And it was a not a phoney report. I will report you again if you continue to break the 3RR-rule. Maybe it's closed by and admin that know how to count to 4 the next time. You can take that as a warning. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. My most recent reversion of other users' edits which you are talking about has already been reverted by Niele~enwiki, this is the revert by him: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ASyrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&type=revision&diff=735201759&oldid=735188536. Newsboy39 (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 August, you have un-archived the section Talk:2016 Nice attack#RfC on the removal of a timeline. It starts with referring to: "...regarding the two threads above". Can you please make clear, for example by inserting (a) wikilink(s) to threads (which perhaps stand in some archive), which threads are meant? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corriebertus. Take a look here: old revision. I believe the "two threads above" is a reference to the section "Timeline of attack - WP:SYNTH adding arbitrary details revealed by investigation" and the "Copy of Reuters timeline from 17 July" chapter. The thread "Description of attack - significant errors?" is not about the timeline. Note that both the description of the attack and the timeline have been updated/corrected since the RfC was started. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tell Qarah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SDF. 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) 10:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erlbaeko. You made a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Syrian Civil War detailed map which is marked with DNAU to delay archiving. Presumably that is to guarantee some admin response. I looked at this but don't see where the current problem is. Coneleir and Lists129 have not edited since 12 October. The only editor you named who is still active on this map is User:Pbfreespace3. Please see the history of this module and let me know if you see any current edit warring. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. That report was answered by an admin (Swarm). It archived here. Fyi, the problem with the map(s) is mostly the lack of verifiability. I believe that is a fundamental policy, and I warned them several times about adding and re-adding unsourced and poorly sourced material before I reported them. As Swarm said "Restoring unsourced content after it has been removed is edit warring and disruptive editing that is usually dealt with via blocking. And yes, it is absolutely disruptive editing to repeatedly add any material that does not satisfy WP:V, even if it's "true"." It was disruptive, and it had to be stopped. Thanks, Erlbaeko (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Erlbaeko. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking me through my confusion at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack. Your patience is greatly appreciated. VQuakr (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Ghouta chemical attack page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the updates on the Syrian page. its good to see somebody else out there who knows the truth. those that don't have eyes for the truth Can't see the truth. Torygreen84 (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For help taking down silly establishment narratives. High five! RaRaRasputin (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too. Time for a break I think... Have a nice holiday! Erlbaeko (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Could you come on the Hatla chemical attack talk page and explain your justification for moving the page from air rais to chemical attack as you say there are sources that claim it was a chemical attack. thanks Domdeparis (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, No need to delete or move pages just because you don't believe it happend. Relax a bit. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

This was troutworthy. Do better. VQuakr (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quak. It was reported as an attack quite simular to one of the narratives of the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Not saying it happend that way (or at all). Erlbaeko (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are too smart to convincingly play dumb. Hence the fish. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the original title, since it was moved without any discussion, but the title should include something about "hitting Islamic State poison gas depot with air strike" as Reuters put it.[8]. It was not just another "airstrike" (if it's anything in the story at all) Erlbaeko (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hatla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State. 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) 09:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may be confused about the 1RR rule, so I have copied over the text from the page notice: "Editors of this page may not make more than one revert per twenty-four hours when reverting logged-in users." L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. My mistake. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your edit here. VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to discuss changes to the article on the articles talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the WP:BURDEN is on you to defend the information you restored. VQuakr (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologise for my rudeness yesterday. I have decided that your contributions so far have been made in good faith, and so I withdraw the suggestion that I might pursue sanctions. Please accept this as my apology. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Re [9]. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you exhibit the inability to distinguish between minority viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources and fringe viewpoints that have not been so published, it makes it hard to take you seriously. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy comrade! Mmmmmm...mmmmmm...mmmmmm..mmmmm...mmmmmm...February 2015....mmmm. Would be really grateful if you could sort it out. Thanks for all the continued hard work buddy. RaRaRasputin (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To this. I included this info because you agreed to it (see here). Now I can see that you later disagreed, but I do not look at this page every hour, sorry. Such confusion is typical when someone looks at fringe claims: such claims are frequently internally inconsistent and contradict logic and facts. OK, I looked at this more carefully and think this whole paragraph should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The head of the investigation into the August 21st 2013 sarin attack said hexamine was used as the Syrian govs acid scavenger

You can't accept that can you. Such inability to accept these things should disqualify you from editing anything Syrian Civil War related as you are hopelessly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.71.193 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inability to question who has the hexamine now should disqualify you from further comment as you are hopelessly biased. Partisangirl has videos of your side stealing it before disarmament on Twitter. 91.103.26.189 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did he really say that hexamine was used as the Syrian govs acid scavenger? At a United Nations Press conference, he actually said "the hexamine question I will send to my chemist colleague", when a reporter from The New York Times asked about the significance of hexamine. If you listen carefully, you can hear the question and answer yourselves here (from 11:40 to 14:10). Erlbaeko (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re [10], I would prefer that you started the section on the changes you propose; if I do so then there is a chance of me unintentionally mischaracterizing your proposed change. Given the nature of the recent article page history, discussing both proposed structural and content changes seems a good idea. VQuakr (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What SPI? See here. Your comment on AN does not make sense. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. My mistake. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now, what "buddies" do you blame of COI here and why? Please either clarify or remove/strike through your comment. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you. You act more like you are his lawyer. Are you? Erlbaeko (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. So, once again, which participants did you blame of COI and why? My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His buddies. Are you his wife or girl-friend then? In that case you may have conflict of interest. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You was talking about people who edit in WP. Who did you mean? You said you did not mean me. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They know who they are. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That means that you are blaming of WP:COI all users who ever positively collaborated with VM in the project. And you do it without any evidence. Do not you think that your comment was inappropriate? My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Please, stay away from my talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I always respect such requests. But I think you clarified this matter on AN by telling this is one specific administrator, and hinting who that person is. Not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, seriously. WHO are these "buddies" and WHAT evidence of COI do you have either in regard to them (whoever they are) or myself? Diffs or strike it or we'll get a separate report going.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you used the exact same term when describing "Khirurgs buddies" without providing any diffs or specification, ref diff, so cut the crap. Fill a report if you like. You should probably read WP:BOOMERANG first. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide diffs of Khirurg's friends getting blocked. Can you provide diffs which show I, or "my buddies" have a COI? If no, then stop talking out your butt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have provided that to you before, it's in some archived AE-case or something. I don't have time to digg into that today. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no you haven't. And it's not in "some archived AE-case or something" because it's just not true. And if you don't "have time to digg" then don't make the accusation in the first place. Again, WP:ASPERSIONS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
There was never consensus to add this material, and your repeated claims that it cannot be modified because there was are quite transparent attempts to manipulate process. VQuakr (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus to add it on the talk page. Please, stop abusing warning or blocking templates. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:AssadistDEFECTOR. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Knock it off. VQuakr (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off yourself. If you can't accept that the article explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree on what comprises a neutral article. That is a content dispute, and it doesn't necessitate or justify personal attacks. VQuakr (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly a personal attack. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am already notified, but thanks for the link. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is