Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:34, 5 January 2016

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Corriebertus, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Geographica may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | 44 || temple of ] in ]; city of ]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Events in the Syrian uprising and civil war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rif Dimashq offensive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kofi Annan peace envoy for Syria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Syrian presidential election, 2014

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

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

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

Goedemorgen ... Hoe gaat het?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISIS and United Nations

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

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

ISIS Talk page

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

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

Redirect

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Talk page (2)

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TALKCOND

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

Manually archived pages

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

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

ISIS edit – Zumar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clerics executed...

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

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

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

Iraq start date

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate Deletions of Material

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

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

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

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

barnstar

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mujahedeen Shura Council. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: 2013 in Iraq

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

Cake and eat it

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

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

North Iraq offensive

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

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

1. ‘Reverting what is not in the sources’;
2. ‘non-encycloidic timeline’;
3. ‘it finished on the 19th (…)’ ;
4. ’(…) with a partial ISIL victory’;
5. ‘100,000 PEPLE were displaced from Ninevah province, not 100,000 Christians’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sinjar massacre

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

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

Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL article

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

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

Partially besieged

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

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

Proxy War Edit

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

Your last message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background to the discussion at WT:Civility

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

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

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

Reference errors on 20 September

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

• On the Turkey–ISIL conflict page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Page re-created after merge!

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

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

Handelsblad link

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry

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

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 Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

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