User talk:ElCommandanteVzl

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ElCommandanteVzl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi ElCommandanteVzl! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National Democratic Action Society may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

* [[National Liberation Front – Bahrain]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Allahu Akbar (anthem) 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:

* {{cite web|url=http://www.syrianhistory.com/songs.htm|title=Songs through History|first=Syrian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiko Okada[edit]

I just noticed that you used the article on Yoshiko Okada that was in my sandbox to create the article Yoshiko Okada. First, I would like to ask why you did not talk to me about this. This was an unfinished version that you have put in the main space incomplete as is. I also put the effort to start the article and you essentially appropriated by hard work. I notice that you are new to Wikipedia, but what you have done is bad etiquette. Michitaro (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what RS say the rebels ?[edit]

what reliable sources say the rebels . Russia today? Daily Hezbollah? no RS say any such thing. Sayerslle (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bild am Sonntag http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild --ElCommandanteVzl (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh right, may have 'not personally' - still the regime side whatever, - that's the thing isn't it . - the thing you want to slur over ' 'claimed' balh blah - alleged - slur slur , - your edit summary said rebels did it is in RS. where? Sayerslle (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin --ElCommandanteVzl (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

when you edit summary ' many RS say the rebels did it' - you indicated the most notorious example, no? - ghouta, what else did 'it' refer to? - endless little chicaneries and word games are tiresome and sophomoric - anyhow you keep destroying what the source says because YOUDONTLIKEIT - mintpress? that's aRS to you is it - explains a lot. - Sayerslle (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That one sources say it, doesnt make it a fact..--ElCommandanteVzl (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one source. its every RS source. Sayerslle (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

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

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

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. VQuakr (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ElCommandanteVzl reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning 2015-01-26[edit]

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

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

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the WP:3RR & WP:1RR rules ...
I'd propose you to self-revert such your edits to avoid reporting your actions. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1RR[edit]

You appear to be in violation of WP:1RR on Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War: [1] [2] -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory notice that there is a report concerning you at the Administrators' noticeboard for edit warring. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

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

I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND[edit]

Please read the above linked article carefully, and consider this a final warning. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/SCW block[edit]

To enforce a community decision, and for violating WP:1RR on the page Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War, as described at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,

you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the sanction and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators:
Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]