User talk:Cleverguy122

Cleverguy122, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Cleverguy122! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

London mosque attack[edit]

Hello Cleverguy 122, in the list of terrorist attacks in September 2018, the incident in front of the London Mosque should be re-added if it acts as an attack against Islamophobic background, since it then meets the criteria of a terrorist attack. Thank you also for your work in the list of terrorist attacks. Request for feedback, --Sokrates2987 (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Sokrates2987[reply]

List of terrorist incidents[edit]

Hello Cleverguy122! I came across some incidents, one this month. A man was racially insulted and hit in the face with a hammer. The police treat the incident as politically / ideologically motivated. Is such an incident included here? Greetings, --Sokrates2987 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be put in the list if the incident was treated as terror by the police. Incidents like these aren't terror but they are hate crime incidents.Greetings.Cleverguy122 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I can’t find the perps mentioned inthe source in this edit. Did I miss something?Sjö (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The reason why I added the group Barisan Revolusi Nasional to the list was because it is the biggest insurgent group in the area.Cleverguy122 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but that goes against two very important policies on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. If Wikipedia is to remain trustworthy, it's important that the information is directly supported by sources and that editors avoid adding text based on their own conclusions or assumptions. This is especially important when it comes to contentious subjects, like terrorism. There is often a political agenda involved when it comes to naming involved groups and for this reason it's important that we don't name perpetrators unless they are explicitly mentioned by reliable sources. Please read the policies i linked above and follow them. Happy editing! Sjö (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reports of 50 Yazidi heads you recently added are all sourcing their report from Daily Mail (Mail on Sunday for Sunday versions) tabloid. As it is banned desist from using it here. Also desist from Sputnik News since it's a Russian government mouthpiece and will of course spout out propaganda against rebels. RookerBowman (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry.Cleverguy122

I did see a report on Rudaw about some being confirmed Yazidis, but they said there were no numbers. Please also avoid Sputnik against rebels, because of course its sympathetic to Assad. RookerBowman (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because landmine bombings has been added for a long time is not a good reason. As the sources themselves say, these were planted during an offensive against military advances and while retreating. They weren't triggered by IS. Any civilian casualties therefore are collateral and do not fall under definitions of terrorism. Unless you have an express motive from ISIS themselves they did it to harm civilians, you cannot include it. RookerBowman (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral from a war of course is not covered under definitions of terrorism. If they were planted when there was no battle and there is collateral, then there is no problem in them being in the list. RookerBowman (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, the government only calls attackers in these parts bandits. Fulani often clash all over Nigeria over grazing areas, though that's not real terrorism. But they also clash over religious and ethnic rivalry, which can be included in terrorism. I doubt it might be Boko Haram, though not impossible. I won't mind if you add it, but I guess get the opinion of someone better at it than me. RookerBowman (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]