User talk:TenseFlower893

Welcome!

Hello, Beejsterb, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ng.j (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Buffalo Lake (Alberta) worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Lake (Alberta)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Buffalo Lake (Alberta), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ng.j (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Deer River

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Red Deer River. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ng.j (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dickson Dam

Take a look at what I have done for ideas about how to incorporate content and conform to style. You can add information about fish as long as it is cited somewhere on the internet. Ng.j (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Big Valley, Alberta. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Discovery canyon

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Discovery canyon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Discovery canyon

The article Discovery canyon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that this town's water park is at all notable

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of crossings of the Red Deer River, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Innisfail, Dickson and Tolman. 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) 10:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

I've marked these files you uploaded, requesting that they be deleted as copyright violations:

The websites you got them from all are pretty clear that these images are copyrighted, and that they cannot be freely reproduced, meaning that they were not public domain (free of copyright) as you claimed on their descriptions. Wikipedia generally only accepts images that are free to use and modify, with some exceptions—see Wikipedia:Image use policy for a full explanation. Please refrain from uploading any more images copied from such copyrighted sources. Thanks, —innotata 07:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Thank you for your recent contributions, such as Battle of the Bell islands. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chungo Creek

The article Chungo Creek has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Creeks typically are not notable, and no references from reliable sources to confirm notability otherwise. The fact that it exists isn't sufficient.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hwy43 (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Piper Creek

The article Piper Creek has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Creeks typically are not notable, even if they meander through urban areas, and no references from reliable sources to confirm notability otherwise. The fact that it exists isn't sufficient.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hwy43 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Waskasoo Creek

The article Waskasoo Creek has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Creeks typically are not notable, even if they meander through urban areas, and no references from reliable sources to confirm notability otherwise. The fact that it exists isn't sufficient.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hwy43 (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Battle of the Bell islands

The article Battle of the Bell islands has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Effectively empty bar an infobox.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of universities in Canada, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lacombe and Leduc. 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) 10:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents, 2016

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of terrorist incidents, 2016, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken 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) 05:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmonton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mill Creek. 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) 09:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Briggs Bridge, Alberta

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Briggs Bridge, Alberta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 2602:306:3357:BA0:1C34:C732:DFBD:EFE2 (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raven River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clearwater River. 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) 10:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of May 2016 Afghanistan road crash

The article May 2016 Afghanistan road crash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of May 2016 Afghanistan road crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article May 2016 Afghanistan road crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2016 Afghanistan road crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

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.

List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016

added links pointing to Madain and Balad

May 2016 Afghanistan road crash

added a link pointing to Moqor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Beejsterb, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to May 2016 Afghanistan road crash has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

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.

17 May 2016 Baghdad bombings

added links pointing to Al-Rashid and Al-Shaab

2016 Air Kasthamandap crash

added a link pointing to Jumla

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2016 Smoky Mountains helicopter crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Smoky Mountains helicopter crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Smoky Mountains helicopter crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global terrorism database

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/BrowseBy.aspx?category=date

Thanks, but that list has older attacks. Where are more recent ones? Beejsterb (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2015 Services Air Airbus A310-300 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Services Air Airbus A310-300 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Services Air Airbus A310-300 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TenseFlower893 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not very clear on how I violated the rules. I am one of the only active editors of the page that seems to be the reason for my block, List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016 (many of the incident's details section's you deleted were not posted by me). I attempt to paraphrase the "Details" section by correcting tense and removing irrelevant information, but is this not enough? If my problem was not paraphrasing the source text enough, then I will add quotations from now on, and if not, I will put the incident completely in my own words. The second thing I mentioned is difficult as the volume of terrorist incidents per day is very high, and I try to get through them quickly, so there may have been some errors in my quick paraphrasing. I apologize for what I did, and I promise to either put the source in quotations (even after paraphrasing it in the way I have been), or put it in my own words from here on out. I have been on this site for many years (6), but I have not been very active. I am learning, and hopefully I will become a better editor from this. Beejsterb (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am accepting your unblock request, because from the wording of your unblock message, I think you do understand copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia. Please don't use quotations. All content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Take your time and do it right. Any further copyright violations will result in you being re-blocked. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I have paraphrased your addition to Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh. Please have a look at this diff so you can learn the extent of paraphrasing required to obey the copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I am a little confused. I read the article, and then I wrote that section completely in my own words. I tried to include all the information in the article, but worded in my own way. Most of the other sections has quite a but of information about the victim and that attacks, so I included information that you seemed to have removed. Could you please tell me how this is copyright? Thanks. Beejsterb (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is re-word the material completely into your own words. Sometimes this will mean material gets omitted. For example, it is not critical to know that he was killed by having his throat slit rather than being shot or bludgeoned, so that is why I omitted that part. It's also not important to know that he was "dead on the spot", a phrase which you copied directly from the source web page. This is why these amendments make the post more compliant with copyright law. — Diannaa (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Most of the other sections in the article have quite a bit of information on the attack and the people involved. I am not sure of the correct way to add this information. Should I add the information you deleted in my own words from the same source, use a completely different source, or not add anything at all? Which would be the best option for that section?

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balad. 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) 10:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please do not make an article for every terror incident that looks "large" or "significant", unless you have source to suggest it is significant. As for the Aktobe attack, I belive it is significant, but in the past I"ve seen many needless articles about attacks that had no significance. Even if a 100 people died, as long as the attack doesn't have any significance (happenes alot in Nigeria), there's no need for a stub article. I am planning to try and filter out many needless articles about terror attacks that were created in the last year.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I try to create articles for incidents that have lots of coverage and/or lots of causalities. I have ignored quite a few major attacks, such as executions and attacks that do not get much coverage. If an attack does not have many causalities, but gets lots of coverage (usually for a reason that makes the attack "unique"), I try to make a article, because those are usually notable. Attacks that aren't "unique", but have lots of casualties, usually get lots of coverage, so I create articles for those too if no one else has. I try to limit the amount of articles to only a few major attacks a month, and I usually create an article if there is a lot of information that cannot be included in the list. This is my reasoning for creating articles. Beejsterb (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the importance of an attack it's the significane and aftermath. For example, the attack in Kazakhstan is something new, and large. The attack in Belguim also. But everyday attacks in Iraq are not significant for the most part, as they are not a major development. In Israel we had three attacks that reveived an article: One that had full coverege for two weeks, was in Tel Aviv (major area) and had a very unusual. The other one was an attack that started a police operation to capture all illegal residents in the country and the third was the first succesful suicide bombing attack in a long time, that injured over 20 people in a bus in Jerusalem. All those attacks are either a development or a very very unusual attacks. I don't blame you for opening articles for unimportant attacks, cause I really don't follow who updates the list since I stopped doing so in February, but since you wrote you are going to start an article, I felt the need to tell you this. Good luck.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the smaller attacks I include have some sort of major effect the comes after the attacks. The Real Madrid attack had an major impact on the team, and the gas plant attack had an impact of the power in the city In Baghdad.

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Mahmoudiya. 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) 10:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IED. 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) 09:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kurdish and Diyala. 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) 09:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IED. 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) 10:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about 2016 Colombia army helicopter crash

Hello, Beejsterb,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 2016 Colombia army helicopter crash should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Colombia army helicopter crash .

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, Kabahaly (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Cox killing terrorism

I was talking about the Wikipedia article itself not accepting the terrorism category. I had classified it under "Terrorism in England", but that edit was undone. That was what I was talking about in my edit summary. Parsley Man (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those people who reverted it are clearly wrong, and you should start a discussion with them as the incident is very clearly an act of terrorism. Every terrorism article I know that this one fits into has it, so those editors are incorrect. Example: List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain, this article includes it. Beejsterb (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

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.

List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016

added a link pointing to Salahuddin

May 2016 Afghanistan road crash

added a link pointing to Moqor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. YSSYguy (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bombing of Baghdad July 2016

Good evening. I make changes based on the statement of the Iraqi Minister of Health on the Iraqi TV quasi-government through contact with her. And we are still waiting for Official statement to prove the final number of victims . To your knowledge, there are more than 165 people missing to this moment. There are a similar number of bodies did not recognize it yet.

We are still waiting for the final announcement for the preparation of the victims dead and wounded. And even issued such a declaration, you can found here. The Arabic-language news about the rising death toll . But the news contain the wrong number for the missing and injured number . Thank you . مؤيد العودة (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

You have been on WP for quite a while now and it's way past the time for you learn how to add references properly. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and perhaps also take a look at Template:Cite news and its relatives. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to reference, I usually do it after the activity of an article goes down. See my references of the Kabul attack on Canadian Embassy Guards Beejsterb (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird how I remove info from an article because it's not supported by a given source, then you reinstate it with a different source and imply that I am not reading sources correctly. As for coming back later to "do it after the activity of an article goes down" - ????? YSSYguy (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently very active with many edits. Once they stop, that is when I usually add in references. Some sources I added at the end of sentences to make it more clear, even though the sources were already in the article. The thing I was talking about is that you keep removing one particular sentence even though there is a whole section in the source that talks about it. This sentence is "Flights from Montreal Saint-Hubert Longueuil Airport were temporarily cancelled because of the accident and bad weather." If you read this source, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/magdalen-island-crash-pilots-react-1.3513601, you will find the information you keep removing in large, bold letters located near the top, somewhat down the page. Beejsterb (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't reference properly, then there is the potential for the to-and-fro and pointless editing that we are currently experiencing. As for the contentious sentence, the source says "Pascan Aviation cancelled its Tuesday flights for the Magdalen Islands." It says nothing about WHY. I have checked Pascan's schedule and guess what? Its flights to the Magdalens are scheduled for the morning, arriving before the time of the crash. Your addition of a sentence saying that "flights from Montreal Saint-Hubert Longueuil Airport were temporarily cancelled because of the accident and bad weather" is a conclusion that you have drawn from a source that says nothing about either supposed reason. The source says the weather was not good and it says that Pascan cancelled certain flights TO the Magdalens (which apparently is not even served directly from Montreal anyway) that day. You have stitched those two facts together. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you for wasting more of my time. YSSYguy (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edit said that "Flights from Montreal Saint-Hubert Longueuil Airport were temporarily cancelled". It is in this part of the text: "Other flights cancelled: Pascan Aviation cancelled its Tuesday flights for the Magdalen Islands". Flights were cancelled, it does not matter who's flights were cancelled. If you want, that could be added to make it more clear in the article. Why was it cancelled? In the source, it states this: "Some pilots at St-Hubert airport told CBC News they didn't want to risk flying in the bad conditions...it's up to the pilot to decide whether to fly". So, the reason why the flights were cancelled was because of bad weather. Therefore, I put this in the article: "Airport were temporarily cancelled because of the accident and bad weather". Now, the source does not clearly state that the accident caused the delays, so I am re-adding the information without that part. Beejsterb (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and I have removed the sentence again because you are interpreting the text and drawing inferences, which we as editors must not do. Some pilots are not allowed to fly in cloud (even if the weather isn't bad per se) as they do not have the appropriate training and licence ratings. Maybe these were the pilots the newspaper reporter talked to - who knows? (We certainly don't.) Apart from that, we are talking about the weather at the departure airport the best part of a thousand kilometres from the crash site, so it isn't even relevant to the crash. You need to distinguish between what is important in a source document and what is not; it is not necessary to repeat every detail contained in the source (that would help with your copyvio issues as well). Imagine someone five years from now reading the article, he/she might think that the two airports were close together, otherwise why have info about weather at the departure airport? YSSYguy (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created

I think page title needs to be changed to “Son of Ali al-Hadi Mausoleum attack” or “Attack on Mausoleum of son of Ali al-Hadi” . You may notice that burial place of Ali al-Hadi is situated in Samarra whereas the 7th July-2016 attack took place in Balad, Iraq targeting the shrine of Muhammad ibn Ali al-Hadi. So action by move or redirect is requested. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Beejsterb (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of terrorist incidents in July 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diyala. 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) 09:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Indian Border Security Force King Air crash

Obviously not unreferenced, I hit the wrong button before I changed my edit summary, but you cannot keep copying and pasting information. The second half of the sentence is irrelevant in any case, 'they had no plans to dispose of the aircraft'? Why is that important? They had no plans to destroy it in a crash either. As I advised earlier, learn the difference between what is relevant and what is not. YSSYguy (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, you know how to reference properly and you wait for activity to "die down" before doing so on the articles you edit, why is 2015 Indian Border Security Force King Air crash still not properly referenced after no activity for two months? I have a better idea - just do it properly straight off. YSSYguy (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi news.com is not a reliable source appropriate for wikipedia

You are using the iraqinews.com website for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_July_2016

Iraqinews.com is not a reliable source and reports false news based on anonymous 'sources' resulting in wikipedia pages containing information about events that never happened

Further, you are using it as a source for war events, not terror attacks Fighting between iraqi security forces/militias and IS is war, not terrorism

Don't add war events and dont use iraqi news in future in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith1122 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Iraqi news is the best and most reliable English news source for Iraq that I have been able to find. If you have another source that is better, then I may use that one instead. It is not just me who uses Iraqi news, but other editors too. Beejsterb (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a very unfortunate conflict of interest in editing all pages related to the Islamic State because you an Iranian Shia. You believe the propaganda that comes from Iraqinews.com even though it is fake news. Other editors are making the same mistake for te same reason as you. iraqinews.com has ZERO reliability, dont use it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith1122 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I not when you knowingly put false information on Wikipedia. Either you are stupid and vandalising Wikipedia, or you are stupid and vandalising Wikipedia because you are Iranian/otherwise have a bias/conflict of interest. Even if we ignore the false information, you still don't know the difference between war and terrorism because you have added war events in a terrorism event list. I mean let me just list some of the fake shit from Iraqinews.com

Iraq Islamic State executed 4 doctors for refusing to fight for them and treat their injured.[96] Does this pass the common sense smell test? Why would they execute doctors. Do you really think there are doctors who would rather die than treat IS members? Its stupid and outside reality another one Islamic State burned 3 family members to death, including a 2-year-old-girl, for trying to escape ISIS-held territory.[185] next, do you really believe IS burns 2 year old sunni girls alive?? its just made up

all these lies are from iraqinews.com i gave you two examples of fake news from that 'source' now dont use itSmith1122 (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

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.

27 July 2016 Qamishli bombings

added a link pointing to Kurdish

List of terrorist incidents in July 2016

added a link pointing to Anbar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2016 Mukilteo shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Mukilteo shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Mukilteo shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prevan (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quetta Attack

You are right, the fatalities increased. But in the article you cited, it lists the injured as only 50+. Should that be changed in the article as well? El cid, el campeador (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that said 120+ injured I will find it.

I believe you. I was just thinking that maybe since the number of fatalities increased, the injuries might have gone down. But I defer to you. Cheers!El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

actually you may be correct. I'll check other sources.

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beni massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beni. 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, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Augustin Matata Ponyo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beni. 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) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

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.

Chain Lakes, Alberta

added a link pointing to Lacombe

List of terrorist incidents in August 2016

added a link pointing to Kurdish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Terrorism

Given my experience with the topic of terrorism, I feel like the issues you've outlined are actually something that need to be addressed at WP:VPP. I had thought long and hard about this while I was banned for a week, but wasn't sure if I should press forward once I got back. See, this is not my first time dealing with this controversy (I've had problems with at least a couple of other editors because of this ever since the beginning of the year), and while I can see the merit of your argument, I feel there's a substantial amount of people who'd disagree with the reasoning you and the other user (can't remember the name at the moment) are presenting. I feel like we're (not just us, Wikipedia users in general) sort of skirting all over the place with what should define a terrorist attack and I think VPP should be the place where we settle this once and for all. What do you think? Parsley Man (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only deleted those instances because those were the only ones that I was aware of. Parsley Man (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting the edits. We included unconfirmed edits on the page. It says so on the main page as it was decided in a discussion! All of these reversions are violating neutrality. Beejsterb (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you need a refreshing on WP:OR. If it's unconfirmed, then it's already original research to already include it in such a list as if it's already been confirmed. Parsley Man (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research since we include suspected incidents, like 95% of the incidents listed. I am not saying it is confirmed, there's a clarification we added on the main article. You are reverting specific ones. Also, you reverted my most recent edit for no reason. This edit was reverting a user who vandalized the death toll. I am also a busy person and do not have much time for this village stuff, although I may try to do it. Beejsterb (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is original research if the terrorist motive has not been confirmed. There should be no exception. But that's why I was suggesting bringing this to VPP since this is obviously a controversial standpoint. Also, I have mentioned this many, many, MANY times before. I don't know any other examples that would be instances of unconfirmed terrorism. I'm only aware of some recent attacks in Western countries such as the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings, and the 2016 attack in Nice. If you do know any other examples that I keep missing, it would be very much appreciated if you removed them too.

I apologize for reverting the vandalism; I was unaware of that. But after some further examination, I noticed the edit also includes two examples of attacks where a terrorist angle is unconfirmed: the 2016 Home Hill stabbings (in which an Islamic fundamentalist motive has clearly not been confirmed, if the article is any indication) and an Essex attack that clearly says "suspected racially motivated attack", not confirmed. Parsley Man (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's not that hard to introduce this to WP:VPP. It's like a talk page; all you have to do is start a new discussion on that article. Make sure the argument is pretty explanatory and you lay out all the examples of concern in the topic. I wish I could bring this to VPP myself, but I actually have a lot on my plate right now, and since you're also involved in this, I would appreciate it if you could do it for me. It's plain and simple, nothing complicated at all. Parsley Man (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me where exactly such decisions were made in regards to the inclusion criteria, because I have not seen any such decision in any of the talk pages involved. And I am not going to say this again, I don't know any other examples that would be instances of unconfirmed terrorism. I'm only aware of some recent attacks in Western countries such as the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings, and the 2016 attack in Nice. Please stop claiming I have an agenda and am only removing certain incidents on purpose, because those are actually just the only instances I am aware of. Parsley Man (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria was decided over time, you can see some of the disputes and discussions that I can find here.

Read the descriptions on these included recent incidents in both articles here. The bottom Islamic incidents are mostly suspected, yet are included in both articles. Beejsterb (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Jo Cox part, please read this section of the talk page. If you want to contribute, then by all means. Parsley Man (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know have the issue on WP:VPP if you want to contribute. Parsley Man (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

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.

American University of Afghanistan attack

added a link pointing to Mark English

List of terrorist incidents in September 2016

added a link pointing to Portland

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Egypt migrant shipwreck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian. 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) 09:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War in Somalia (2009–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Shabab. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2016 Mukilteo shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Mukilteo shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Mukilteo shooting (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Parsley Man. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Parsley Man (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe the edits were constructive, as they meet the article's criteria and are suspected under-investigation terror incidents like every other incident on the page. Articles like Nice should also be re-included because it is a suspected terror attack, and has been labelled as such by many officials even though they are still not 100% sure. I am not saying these attacks should be labelled as terrorism, they are suspected terrorist attacks therefore they are included in this list. Beejsterb (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Parsley Man (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted". I mean, I was the one who originally reverted you... Beejsterb (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Beejsterb. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calgary–Edmonton Corridor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sturgeon River. 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) 10:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of January 2017 Azaz bombing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article January 2017 Azaz bombing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 Azaz bombing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 03:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Beejsterb. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion for Internal conflict in Bangladesh

An article that you have been involved in editing—Internal conflict in Bangladesh —has been proposed to be renamed and moved. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TenseFlower893. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2015 Services Air Airbus A310 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Services Air Airbus A310 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Services Air Airbus A310 crash (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]