User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria

The Great Mule of Eupatoria, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi The Great Mule of Eupatoria! 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 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of genetic hybrids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Dubious reference

Hi, I notice that when you created the article Pseudoyersinia brevipennis you cited the URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/11250009809386744. It links to a paper entitled "Sexual size dimorphism and natural history traits are correlated with intersexual dietary divergence in royal pythons (python regius) from the rainforests of southeastern Nigeria". I don't have access to that content, but it seems an unlikely source. Could you provide the correct URL or a quote to verify? Thank you. William Avery (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I have inserted the wrong link during my creation of the article, I will be sure to change that. Thank you for letting me know The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

IUCN status without reference

I've noticed you havce been adding or updating quite a few IUCN status assessments without adding or updating the IUCN reference. I'm afraid that is worse than not having the status noted at all - Wikipedia's main function is as a summary of linked sources, not as a compendium of untraceable information. Please take care to always provide the correct source. I suggest using the template {{cite iucn}} for this purpose. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching to me. I do add the sources of many species in the edit summary but sometimes having to get the IUCN link and copy each one gets a bit tiresome especially since most of what I’m doing so far is updating recent statuses for species that don’t have it. Thank you for the template

 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please make sure to parameterize the IUCN template correctly? The title and address need to be assigned to separate parameters ("title" and "url" respectively). See [1] and [2]. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an automated way of creating the iucn cite template. I have copied this from User talk:Trappist the monk/Archive 20 Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Cite iucn template

Has the template been fixed for errata versions? Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

yes. here is the plain text errata citation from IUCN Panthera leo:

Bauer, H., Packer, C., Funston, P.F., Henschel, P. & Nowell, K. 2016. Panthera leo (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T15951A115130419. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en. Downloaded on 24 September 2021.

give that to {{make cite iucn}}:

{{make cite iucn|Bauer, H., Packer, C., Funston, P.F., Henschel, P. & Nowell, K. 2016. Panthera leo (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T15951A115130419. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en. Downloaded on 24 September 2021.|x}}

and get:

{{cite iucn |author=Bauer, H. |author2=Packer, C. |author3=Funston, P.F. |author4=Henschel, P. |author5=Nowell, K. |year=2016 |title=''Panthera leo'' (errata version published in 2017) |errata=2017 |volume=2016 |page=e.T15951A115130419 |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en |access-date=24 September 2021}}

Bauer, H.; Packer, C.; Funston, P.F.; Henschel, P.; Nowell, K. (2017) [errata version of 2016 assessment]. "Panthera leo (errata version published in 2017)". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016: e.T15951A115130419. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en. Retrieved 24 September 2021.title has extraneous text

without |errata=:

{{cite iucn |author=Bauer, H. |author2=Packer, C. |author3=Funston, P.F. |author4=Henschel, P. |author5=Nowell, K. |year=2016 |title=''Panthera leo'' (errata version published in 2017) |volume=2016 |page=e.T15951A115130419 |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en |access-date=24 September 2021}}

Bauer, H.; Packer, C.; Funston, P.F.; Henschel, P.; Nowell, K. (2016). "Panthera leo (errata version published in 2017)". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016: e.T15951A115130419. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en. Retrieved 24 September 2021.title has extraneous text

I should probably tweak {{make cite iucn}} so that it removes the (errata version published in year) text – thought I did that...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realise that there was a template that converted the plain text citation, I have been doing it manually.Quetzal1964 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Related question about the iucn template; I'm not sure if this is an issue with the template or the doi the iucn page is providing.

{{cite iucn |last1=Muller |first1=Z. (eliding rest of names) |title=''Giraffa camelopardalis'' |amends=2016 |volume=2018 |page=e.T9194A136266699 |date=2018 |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T9194A136266699.en}}

Muller, Z. (2018) [amended version of 2016 assessment]. "Giraffa camelopardalis". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2018: e.T9194A136266699. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T9194A136266699.en.

For me, that's giving a green "|date= / |doi= mismatch" warning, which I'm presuming is because the doi says 2016 but the date says 2018. Is this because the template doesn't know to check the amends date instead, or because the IUCN has mucked up the doi somehow? --PresN 18:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eleutheronema tetradactylum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arabian Gulf.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

New edit

With regard to this edit: you probably are not be aware of this, but there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Could you please self-revert as to avoid another edit war? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Additions to taxoboxes

You are getting to be a bit of a recurring irritant. Could you please desist from adding "population increasing" or similar to taxoboxes? ONLY the code, system and reference go there, no further editorial comments. Use the main text for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Warning - addition of unsourced material

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

I have notified you before that you cannot add unsourced material to articles. Not only have you gone on to add an IUCN status to Pink corydoras and Masked corydoras without bothering about a citation, but you have added an entire large section to Dwarf rainbowfish without giving a source. Please stop this. (I didn't check, but if you copied that text directly from some copyrighted source, that is an equally bad idea - see WP:COPYVIO). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

All conservation statuses are confirmed by the IUCN so I am not making anything up, as with the neon rainbowfish some of what I made or wrote is built on what already is in the article though I will add sources if I wish to re-edit the page The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The question is not about "making it up", it's about verifiability. A reader must be able to look up the original source of anything written in the encyclopedia. If you don't give a citation, they can't do that. Adding sources is a fundamental requirement for working on this project. It's not optional, or something you only do whenever you can be bothered. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I see you are slowly starting to use a few references - thank you. Now could you a) please do it consistently - it's absolutely no good just putting them in the edit summary, as here; and b) if you use the template, format it correctly - there needs to be a " |url= " before the web address, otherwise you get faulty output like here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pennant coralfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arabian Gulf.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, The Great Mule of Eupatoria

Thank you for creating Dwarf stonebasher.

User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice job on this article. I fixed up the references if you check out the code for each you should be able to use it as a guide for next time. Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hughesdarren:

Thank you! I appreciate it, and I will keep in mind how to use this code when I make another article

The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dwarf rainbowfish

added a link pointing to Diet

Siamese fighting fish

added a link pointing to Diet

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Osteoglossidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heterotis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Scleropages jardinii

With this edit you moved Scleropages jardinii to Australian Pearl arowana. This Australian fish is never known by this common name in Australia, please move it back. I note that this move was not discussed on the article talk page prior to the move. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My bad. It has been moved back already so that’s resolved The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Eupatoria

Thank you for your edits. Does your username refer to one of the cities with that name, or, like the agrimony, to Mithridates VI Eupator? ◅ Sebastian 21:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Greetings,

I am happy to answer. It does indeed refer to the battle which took place in Eupatoria in 1855,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Eupatoria This one in particular. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

images

Please provide more information on the "Illustrated collection of fishes from Asia, Africa and Australia" you reference in the images you upload, no book with that name exists as far as I can find. Additionally do not give the images nonsense names, as it only creates more work for others renaming them to logical names.--Kevmin § 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The “Illustrated collection of fishes from Asia, Africa and Australia” is a personal project (the images are all my work” so it’s not available yet publically, as for the names I have already settled on a good template to use for naming instead of the placeholder nonsense I generally used The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I would highly suggest leaving the name out of your image upload descriptions then, as it creates the impression that a book does currently exist which you are mining for illustrations. --Kevmin § 15:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Understood, I will be sure to do that The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi, I've just come across your recent article Aspire Lake, and noticed that most of the contents are unsupported by references. This opens up a number of potential challenges, and I was tempted to move the article into the draft space so you can continue to work on it. However, I've left it in the main space for now, but would ask that you go back and add more sources and citations to it; as a rule of thumb, every material statement should be supported by reference to a reliable source, so that it can be verified, and to ensure there is no copyvios or original research. For more advice on this, please see WP:REFB. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There are a few pieces of information that I have established based on me actually going the park (for example the species referenced by photos), but I will do what I can to bring more references. I can find some The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

List of birds of Qatar

I have a few problems with your changes of the List of birds of Qatar and I'll revert them again. The list historically references Clements as the source of the list but you've reordered them alphabetically, and you've changed some names of some of the birds. Please reference any changes you are making and try to make those changes consistent with other lists.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not changed anything relating to taxonomy except adding an introduced subspecies of ostrich supplemented with references, and an outdated renewal due to the introduction of the peacock. Names were switched to vernacular equivalents if they exist, but I have reverted said names. This is several hours’ worth of work and exhaustion and I would hate to see it all go to waste especially without a reason.

If anything, other lists should resemble what I’m trying to make due to additional information being provided. Just because other lists lack it doesn’t mean an improved version should have al, it’s information removed.

If you have a problem with anything in the list please improve or fix it, don’t delete all my workThe Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

But it is incorrect, so it should be reverted. The status is OK, but everything else isn't.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I use the same chart template, whilst abiding by the Clement’s taxonomy, order, and sequence the edits will be kept up? I am currently manually reverting the list style, however without changing the order of the families nor the common names, however I have changed some of its inaccuracies regarding the National status (for example, stating that the bulbuls or parakeets are native) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Referencing

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that references are optional. They are not; they are essential. And everything unreferenced can and will be removed by other editors. I am amazed that after all the notices people have sent you (including me) you still haven't grasped that basic fact. Provide references for all text you add, or don't add it. Either stop including unreferenced material in articles, and especially stop re-inserting it after someone correctly removes it, or I will start reporting you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You removed the entire article, including the referenced information. There’s a section describing the description of the snake that was not added by me. However I have provided reference regarding the conservation status, and have even tried to bring things to information that I didn’t add upon creating this article for example detailing the taxonomic dispute. I have noticed that other parts were copy and pasted from another wiki, though its links are dead.

If the information is unsourced, remove the information not the entire article The Great Mule of Eupatoria

Edit: I have checked the article, and it seems you have removed the entire section describing the appearance of the species and record length. If you look through the search history you will realise that’s not something I added. (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Southern rock python

Hi, I only edited Southern rock python as part of the conversion of manual taxoboxes to automated ones; reptiles aren't something I know much about. However, it does look to me as though the scientific name should be changed to the full species Python natalensis based on the sources in the article (which would then use {{Speciesbox}}). Anyway, I leave it to you. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. As per the sources, I will follow your suggestion especially since the references substantiate it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Final warning - addition of unsourced material

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Laughing dove, you may be blocked from editing.

This indicates that you are unwilling or unable to understand the basic rules of sourcing that are in effect on this project, and intend to go on ignoring then. People are getting blocked for this kind of disruptive editing every day. Either play by the rules or be made not to play at all - your choice. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have specified in the edit summary that this was an observation I saw, I see these birds every single day since I knew of their existence. My issue is how excessive and practically nonsensically these rules are enforced, especially in cases where they are not violated. For example, a resemblance of two species in the Northern Snakehead where I had previously said it resembles a Burmese Python, which you removed because it was “unsourced as usual”. However, these edits are very basic things that absolutely do not require references as in this case they can be proven by just looking at the two animals

Another particularly frustrating case is when the southern rock Python article was deleted and then when I reverted everything you warned me and said you’d be reporting me for “not referencing” when the main edit that seems to have compelled your decision was not even added by me. It doesn’t seem that referencing seems to satisfy anything because when I tried it in the Kentish plover you for some reason reacted very aggressively towards my edit, and attacked my ‘interpretation’ when all could have done was to verify it with both users you listed without the whole altercation in the first place. So far, nearly every interaction has been hostile and you always assume my edits in bad faith even when I reference them, at this point why bother editing if I’m just going to keep getting reverted wether I cite a fact or write a simple observation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria: I do understand how frustrating it can be when you personally know that something is the case, or it can be ascertained by looking at images. I am also well aware that there are article where such personal observations have not been removed. However, the problem is that once the requirements in WP:Verifiability are abandoned, more irresponsible editors will add all kinds of information that cannot be verified. For example, I see additions of the kind "I know that [herbal medicine/alternative remedy/whatever] works because it did for me." Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the verifiability policy, you are absolutely correct. I was uncertain at first, with the edit summary being “do personal observations count” as I’d seen the mentioned phenomenon several times. My issue and insisting on the edit was me being told that I would be “reported”.

It’s not this single edit, as the whole buildup to that moment eventually led to me having enough because there are instances where I’ve had my cited edits removed as if I had acted in bad faith and told I’d be reported for an unreferenced edit that I hadn’t even made, both of which I had brought up simply because of how much I’ve had enough of this situation.

thank you for explaining the policy, at least I know that then

The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's talk about frustrating. It is frustrating to have to double-check everything you produce, because you just don't seem to learn. Months ago you got detailed help on how to correctly reference IUCN status - you are still blindly pasting broken templates, or hiding the reference under a "2" or a "status". I don't know how often the basic principle of "don't add what you can't source" has been pointed out to you, and you still try to add personal observations. List of birds of Qatar is about 30% unsourced, conjecture and original research, and I'm only shying away from that one because I don't have the time to get into a major edit war when you "don't want to lose your work". You place this kind of ludicrous proclamation, and I need to drag in two native speakers to point out what basic common sense should make clear from the get go; you insert misinterpretations based on original research into image captions. Basically everything you do needs to be monitored for damage to the verifiable, referenced encyclopedia we are trying to establish here. Not a personal blog; not a hobby project for personal opinion; a reliable reference work. I wish you would just GET that at some point.

I'm not buying that you only just understood about verifiability. This talk page is full of people pointing this out to you. But okay, let's assume the problem is now finally clear... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And am I not using it? I would break the page in the past, I still have the very same template I used saved in my notes that you sent when my account was new. Just a moment ago you reverted my entire section on the white-eared bulbul describing its appearance because it was unsourced. Why would I need to source that? The image of the bird is literally the first thing you see when you open its page. All that is being done is writing the features. It has a yellow vent, does a reference have to be brought up when it can be clearly seen in the image?

In the “list of birds of Qatar”, I have added a source that is a book (Common birds of Qatar) which I have open next to me every single time I edit the page to summarise a bird’s presence in the country, appearance and behaviour so yes not only is it “my work” but it’s also sourced too so it can’t be something held against me. Not to forget how the Kenish plover issue played out, how you practically take offense to my statement saying “photography in Poland is illegal” as if I had somehow insulted you.

Perhaps I’ll get it when you stop changing every letter I write because it’s not referenced when the image of the bird I’m describing is right in front of the user.

as for the personal observations that is basically out of the way due to the policy, I don’t really see what bringing this up does as I specified a personal observation I see on a daily basis. I see the section of me getting warned for the edit of the rock Python that I wasn’t even responsible for adding in the first place is left out. You’re going way overboard with this, I am absolutely and 100% certain that saying a fish has a similar pattern to a reptile, or describing the appearance of a songbird with the picture right in front of any user reading the page will do absolutely nothing to damage the verifiability of the page The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You are still not getting it. You CANNOT use personal observations even when declaring them to be so - they have no place in the encyclopedia. Nada. Zip. Wikipedia:No original research. You CANNOT write text based on your interpretation of an image, even if the intrepretation seems entirely obvious to you, because it is your interpretation, not that of a published source. Yes, that extends to things like describing a bird from an image. Maybe what the image shows is a color morph, maybe it's one sex and you can't know which one, maybe that yellow vent is a juvenile feature or a regional variant, maybe that "bushpig" is a hyrax and your interpretation is just plain wrong.

We ONLY publish material that is written down in reliable sources that can be made availabe to the reader for checking. As long as you try to argue your way out of that principal requirement, we will keep having issues. I don't know how to make it clearer than that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You didn’t see me complain when you corrected the ID of the animal being constricted by the Python though? Nor with the “Unencyclopaedic” tones such as the giant catfish chilling out or the European roller “defeating” the centipede.

Me trying to “argue my way out” is dependent entirely on how persistently my edits get reverted under the idea that it “isn’t sourced”, to the extent where I’ve been accused and warned of an edit I never made, where even referencing my work is somehow offensive when again, all what was needed to do if you doubted my edit was to confirm it with people who knew the language.

It’s gotten to a point where you bring up the “list of birds of Qatar” page saying it wasn’t sourced, even though it’s literally said and linked in the first paragraph. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

All right, on to the latter: when I see something like this -

This species was established in the wetlands of Abu Nakhla, possibly as an attempt to diversify the wildlife in the new habitat. This bird is vivid and remarkably large, outsizing all other rails in the country. It is a close relative of the takahē, a rare bird that is endemic to New Zealand. Its appearance is one that cannot be forgotten, as its plumage is blueish-purple all over with a greenish tail and white vent. It is complemented by the bird’s bright read beak.

- I know it's either someone's flowery invention, or a copyright violation. I had thought that you were at least aware of our copyright regulations (which are here - and some of the most strictly enforced rules on the project) and thus assumed the latter. Can you assure me that such passages are not copied verbatim out of the book in question? Remember, that is as much a problem as not sourcing stuff at all - all material should be summarized and/or rephrased to avoid copyright violations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

For sure. I will quote the exact page (page 165 of the book cited), though I will let you know that this was before the African swamp hen was recognised as distinct.

”A breeding population of these large, vividly coloured waterbirds, probably descended from escaped birds or else deliberately introduced, is established in the wetlands at Abu Nakhla. Twice the size of a common moorhen (p. 166), with red legs, the plumage is an iridescent purplish colour against which the powerful scarlet bill and frontal shield stand out

Despite its lack of webbed feet, the purple swamp hen is a good swimmer although it is more often seen paddling in shallow water or walking on the mud banks. It is a shy bird but its colour makes it easily visible as it clambers among the reeds, searching for young shoots and other vegetable matter. It will also eat small fish and invertebrates.”

there is a photograph of the African swamphen facing left, with a visible white plumage on its vent with one leg raised and a Reed in its beak. Also included is a map of Qatar with a magenta mark on Abu nakhla, indicating the range of the bird. The size of the bird which is written on the top right of each page is greater than that of all other rails, hence me stating its “outsizing all the other rails in the country” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The size statement is, again, your own conclusion and should not be presented as a statement from the source. The takahe comparison, while true, is somewhat beside the point because it is a lot more closely related to the Australasian swamphen, which is extremely widespread. It's not good encyclopedic text, but if this is not copyvio, I will leave the prose overhaul in this article to someone else. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have edited it accordingly, I only left the takahe edit to create familiarity, if I was not wrong the African and Australasian swamp hen were considered conspecific

i have refrained from such conclusions as I add new charts for the missing species (Reed warblers for example). The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Massaging" links

For the moment ignoring the issue of whether it's Aphanius or Aphaniops, could you PLEASE not do something like this? I mean faking the title of the linked IUCN website, when it clearly still reads "Aphanius". That is intentional misrepresentation of sources. I mean, why do I even have to say this??? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw the taxon swap happen on iNaturalist https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_swaps/107026 so I followed the sources. There was also one practically making the family serranidae obsolete, but I’m not sure if I find the reference for that. The IUCN change looks to be erroneous on my part, and if it’s not been reverted already I will do it. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

iNaturalist is not a reliable source for taxonomic information because it is crowdsourced. This kind of thing can be implemented when it actually turns up in the reliable databases. For fishes, that is FishBase by preference. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Taxonomic_resources for comments on sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you got letting me know. The source used by iNaturalist was “catalogue of fishes”, which doesn’t seem to be in the taxonomic resource link. I can see why my edit would be considered inaccurate according to the main sources The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Zoosphaerium darthvaderi

On 1 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zoosphaerium darthvaderi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Darth Vader's anal shield has a "pronounced bell shape"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Darth Vader Giant Pill-Millipede. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zoosphaerium darthvaderi), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 19,721 views (821.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Long Boi moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Long Boi, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Understandable. I might resubmit the draft if I can find sufficient information The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello, I'm Laterthanyouthink. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Plains-wanderer, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have changed the IUCN status. If I am not mistaken, there is a bot that automatically updates the URL for the IUCN red list status. I have added the references if I am adding a new status instead of updating it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about a bot, but you changed the status to endangered (with no WP:EDITSUMMARY OR WP:RS), but the IUCN Red List clearly shows that it is critically endangered (see here). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s the outdated status link, the monkbot tends to change those urls (admittedly I mess them up when referencing). The status was updated just today The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Boy, this entire "provide valid references" thing comes hard to you, doesn't it. If you change content you must update the source as well. Pasting in a new assessment status is worse than worthless (because misleading) if you don't update the reference. How difficult is that? Would you please take care of that in all the dozens of articles you have "updated" today? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I will be sure to do that. I have gotten the hang of the IUCN template so I won’t break the pages The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of birds of Kuwait, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chukar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Sturgeon

You can start a discussion on the article TP, but please don't remove accurate info and replace it with inaccurate info. Atsme 💬 📧 17:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ruddy turnstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Long Boi

Hello, The Great Mule of Eupatoria. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Long Boi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to First French Empire

Hello! I was doing some clean-up of ref errors, and noticed that the note that you added here is filled with Template:citation errors. I can't fixed them, since I don't know what you intended to achieve with them. Maybe you can come back to the article and clean up after yourself? a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 17:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

my bad, I’m not sure how to clean up this error (I had used the reference from French Wikipedia) so I will simply revert my edit The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

German Empire

Please do not add unsourced information to Wikipedia articles, as you did to this article. Information added to Wikipedia must satisfy WP:V and be verifiable through the addition of citations to reliable sources. Information which is unsourced is subject to removal at any time, and must not be restored without proper sourcing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I note above that you have been warned about this kind of behavior before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I was basing this information off the inserted map as well as that they lead to articles supporting my information, and as result did not see it as necessary to cite the sources The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That's called WP:Synthesis, a kind of WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If I were to simply take the sources from the respective pages and paste them in the section, should that be sufficient? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Pallid harrier

On the page about the putative fish, Bathyembryx, where were you getting the name "pallid harrier" from? Was this some confusion, or a name from Beebe? It has been removed from the opening paragraph some time ago, but I was surprised to encounter the word "harrier" in an image caption at the foot of the page. I'm about to change that to "pallid sailfin". After all, the pallid harrier is a bird.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I made the page about a year ago, and at the same time I was working on a project about our native bird species (of which the pallid harrier is one of). It seems I was recalling the name from memory while writing the article and ended up mixing them up. I will change it if it hasn’t been changed already, I did forget about the whole article a long while ago, so thank you for letting me know

~ Fahad The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski

For a reference to the pronunciation of Kaczynski's name, see this video of his brother.[3] He was third-generation American, not Polish. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I’m assuming that’s how the family eventually came to pronounce the name after moving to America?

~ Fahad The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Can you please revert the pronunciation in the article? (It's protected.) 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

For sure, thank you for letting me know

~ Fahad The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laridae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noddies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

1RR at October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict

All articles in the Israel-Palestine topic are under WP:1RR; breaches of this are serious and can result in immediate blocks. In the past 24 hours you have made several partial or complete reverts, including but not limited to 9:43, 8 October 2023 and 11:26, 8 October 2023. Please be very careful making reverts in the future on that article or on any other article in the topic area. BilledMammal (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure no problem, I’m aware of the sensitivity of the issue and the specific topic that is constantly changing because it’s recent. Most of these reverts seem to be wrong figures, removing questionable sources or just me messing up the placement of the casualties. Thanks for letting me know

~ Fahad The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but you're again in violation of WP:1RR; please self-revert your most recent two reverts at October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict - note that partial reverts count as reverts. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

04:46, 9 October 2023, 12:39, 9 October 2023, 12:56, 9 October 2023, and 12:59, 9 October 2023 - the last two count as only a single revert, but that still puts you at three reverts (assuming I haven't missed any), two more than you are permitted. I note the first revert also overlapped with the last reverts I brought up as violations of WP:1RR; you must be more careful in the future, this cannot happen again. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it, if I am able to (given they are undoable) I will revert them and combine it as one, I’m not trying to completely delete edits to prevent back and forths too The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. However, looking at your edit I believe you made a mistake; you reverted the full page to the version it was prior to doing the edit at 12:59, 9 October 2023. What you need to do is revert the sections of the page that you reverted in the 12:59, 9 October 2023 and 12:56, 9 October 2023 edits to the versions they were prior to your reverts. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is that what happened? I thought it only reverted my edit summary, Immanuel revert is going to be better than undoing for me here The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A manual revert will probably be better; the other bit you need to undo is the content you added here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, this has been posted on an article talk page you have been involved in for hours, please achieve consensus before adding this content. KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @The Great Mule of Eupatoria, you've reverted one of my edits to this page when I added a link to Knesset. Why is that? I was unfamiliar with the term, so I added a link to it because I thought others may be as well. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not your fault, I was going to undo my edit but ended up reverting the entire page to a previous version prior to my edit The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, I'll go ahead and readd it then. Thank you for the clarification! BaduFerreira (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re welcome, and my bad The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral edit

"Undid revision 1179362085 by Natureium (talk) in a vaccum you are correct. However, all articles mentioning the Palestinian side refers to it as “terrorism”, “massacre” and “mass murder” so doing the same for Israel’s actions is basically making it neutral"

[4]

This revert and edit summary makes no sense whatsoever. You need to add a source to make use a loaded word like "terrorism". It is irrelevant that other actions are referred to as terrorism, when they have been described that way in sources considered to be reliable by Wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I am very aware of what you’re saying and like I said in a normal case I would fully agree. My point is that Wikipedia editors have been using this loaded language to refer to anything done by the Palestinians, but when Israel does it they whitewash it and label it as simply an “air strike”. It is simply hypocritical by the Wikipedia editors who seem to have forgotten about their neutrality policy here and letting their biases leak in@ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is The Great Mule of Eupatoria. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Especially on contentious topics such as the Israel–Hamas War, be sure that your comments are limited to what is necessary to improve the article, not a general discussion about the merits of the war or its participants. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

1RR Violation

Dear @The Great Mule of Eupatoria You have made a 1RR violation here: one two. Please revert your second edit. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Was the first one revert? I just changed an image. I only know the second one The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I linked diffs of both of your edits, if you are confused as to how 1RR works, please see WP:Editwarring. Also please revert your second edit as it's in violation of wiki rules. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve already reverted it, I’m still on one revert today right now so it seems I’m good The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated violations of the one-revert restriction, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks from certain pages (2023 Israel–Hamas war). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

So true… The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Please note that this is quite a mild sanction. I would strongly suggest you read all the links you've been given because in an area like this there is a much lower tolerance than in most topic areas. If you're brought to Arbitration enforcement again, you will likely end up with a topic ban or sitewide block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at it there seems to be one link today. Also I am seeing numbers before the policy (1:RR, 3:RR), are they supposed to represent severity? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

1RR refers to the one revert rule (applies to the article you are blocked from, for instance) and 3RR is the three revert rule which is about edit warring generally. Best thing is to read up on reverting, it will keep you out of trouble. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I see, however wouldn’t that mean I just made one revert today according to my edit history? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• In a nutshell: certain topic areas are extremely controversial on Wikipedia, often those that focus on ethnic and geo-political conflicts. The Arab-Israeli conflict is pretty much top of the list; other examples include American politics, India-Pakistan, and Armenia-Azerbaijan. Disagreements are a natural part of editing Wikipedia but in these areas ("contentious topics" in Wikipedia jargon) disputes quickly escalate and spread, making normal editing impossible, so admins are empowered to act much more quickly and decisively to put a stop to disruption. Because of the disruption caused by long-term edit warring, the entire Arab-Israeli topic area is subject to a one-revert restriction, which means you can only revert an edit (by undoing or manually, like removing information someone else has added, for example) one in any 24-hour period. Doing it twice in 24 hours is grounds for a block on its own. See Help:Reverting for a more detailed explanation of what is considered a revert and the blue boxes labelled "introduction to contentious topics" for more on the procedures. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Israeli war crimes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sexual humiliation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Al-Shifa Hospital siege, you may be blocked from editing.

At this article you added the statement however these “intelligence sources” are likely to be completely manufactured. This is not a claim supported by any provided source, and as far as I can tell it is not a claim supported by any reliable source.

This edit is so far beyond what is acceptable that if you were a more experienced user I would have taken you to WP:AE; instead, I will ask you to refrain from such edits in the future and to self-revert this addition. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, though I think we both know these “intelligence sources” are an Iraq WMD level of a joke The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting. However, in the edit you reverted this addition you also switched "said" to "claimed"; per MOS:CLAIM, to avoid inappropriately calling the statement into question we should be using "said" or similar, rather than "claimed" or similar. Further, "said" aligns with the source (He said the United States had information that Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were using some hospitals in the Gaza Strip, including Al Shifa, to conceal or support their military operations and to hold hostages), while "claimed" does not.

As such, I feel the need to repeat my request to refrain from such edits in the future, and to self-revert this switch. BilledMammal (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the Wikipedia policy I still need a grip on so feel free to let me known of even the small details such as the “claimed” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gaza Health Ministry. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Longhornsg (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This isnt a disruptive edit, I am removing a completely unsourced edit that severs no reason other than to downplay the atrocities in Gaza and civilian massacres The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Siege of Gaza City, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. "‎Estimate produced by the difference of deaths from nov. 2, divided by the geographic area and then deflated to account for the displaced and evacuated" --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I used the Gaza health ministry and Euro-med death tolls, which I then modified. If I cite them even though I have reduced the numbers, will that be sufficient? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No. You cannot take a source that says, for example, 10,000 people died in Gaza since Nov. 2, then synthesize that with a second source that says the siege began on Nov. 2, then synthesize that with a third source that says the geographic area of the besieged land is (e.g.) 25 and the total land area for Gaza is 100, but 80% of those were displaced or evacuated per a fourth source, and therefore the number of deaths from the siege is 10,000 * (25/100) * .8. Without getting into whether that is sound methodology, that's synthesis. You need a source that says: "The number of casualties from the siege is X." --Orgullomoore (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will revert it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder about user edited content as sources

Just a reminder, user edited content, such as IMDb and other language editions of Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources. They should not be used to justify edits. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I am aware, I wasn’t using them as a citation but rather to compare the outcome to the English Wikipedia version, which has it simplified to “Israeli victory”, as well as referencing the same citation in my previous edit a month prior. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s still justifying an edit by citing, even if not formally and only in the edit summary, user edited content. If you’ve been following this page for that long, you should know that the entire topic is under discretionary sanctions and that it has been contentious on the talk page. I’m at a loss for why you would think to just make a massive alteration like this of the entire outcome of a war without bringing it to the talk page and basically justifying it only with other user edited content. The outcome as existing in the article for many years has 12 referenced sources. That’s not something to be thrown out this way with zero discussion. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have brought it to the talk page, there seemed to be more citations than when I made the edit a month ago, so I’m kind of lost looking for the specific one I was talking about The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Your current activity on the talk page is not backed up with any sources at all, so… —OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have replied with the citations I could find. I hope it is sufficient The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

23' israeli invasion

3 December part missing one fullstop 93.143.162.139 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Note

Al Aqsa brigades link on "battle of Khan Y." is wrong, showing actually them: Al-Quds Brigades

(besides KY battle page has numerous errors, israeli forces overlinks and "The" with unneeded capital letter)

Secondly, all commons maps are a day late so use dates instead of "current israeli control"

(siege of gaza city needs some more description as nothing after 41. 11., while map almost fully captured) 93.140.98.107 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I’m only managing the khan yunis front which is a separate file from the the original map with the full invasion The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Amedi

Please someone include the city of Amedi in Iraq (3,000 BC). Williamferreiraam (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

where did your screen name come from?

Sorry, this is trivial, but I'm curious?

• Great Mule of Eupatoria
• Great Mule of Eupatoria
• Great Mule of Eupatoria

That gives a few possible Eupatorias? and no info on great mules? (Mine is a completely made up sound that sort of evolved from my real name) Irtapil (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello

This “great mile of eupatoria” is a long-standing entity in a 19-th century themed world building project (hence Eupatoria) that I had worked on years ago. When I registered to Wikipedia in 2021 I used this as my username to pay homage to my old project The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Palestine

Hi Fahad. I see you're busy placing the Palestinian flag on pages of Israeli settlements :)

Why do I think it's worth a smiley? It's a bit self-defeating. If the State of Palestine is already a reality, then the conflict is basically solved, at least on a diplomatic level. The problem is though that flags on Wiki pages still are quite a short lever to work with, a tiny tail to wag the dog by. But Don Quixote has managed with less, so good luck taking down the windmill. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Officially, Palestine claims the West Bank including area C and East Jerusalem and these are the internationally recognised borders. The de facto situation is obviously different, as israel controls the West Bank with over 2/3 under military occupation however they do not officially claim the West Bank. As Palestine is the only country that officially claims the West Bank and is the within internationally recognised de jure borders of Palestine, the flag is added to reflect that The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This is wildly inaccurate, and obviously politically-motivated. I recommend you go back on these changes. 71.167.113.91 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this request being more well written than the snarky remarks by our strange friend arminden above. However I would suggest the contrary, and put “Palestine” under all the West Bank settlements. This is because despite Israel administering these occupied territories Palestine is the only country that officially claims the West Bank as well as these being the internationally recognised borders The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you assist with some summaries?

Hey The Great Mule of Eupatoria! I’ve recently took on a project to fix up and basically redo the List of invasions article, which was in extremely poor shape having an incomprehensible tag since 2020. In doing so, I started the List of invasions in the 21st century. As you obviously know, the Israel-Hamas war has resulted in 2 partial invasions and 1 full invasion. A lot of the invasions on the list have no summary or a very short summaries right now, with some of the biggest events and/or campaigns completely missing still. So, since you edit a lot in the realm, would you like to write up a summary for the three 2023 Israel-Hamas invasions for the list of invasions? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I see you have made a page for 21st century invasions. Is there a template for how to write out the summaries? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really. My thought process through it has been to basically write/spell out what a result-style bullet summary would say. The 2022 invasion of occupied Ukraine (the two Ukrainian counteroffensives) and the June 2023 Ukrainian invasion of Belgorod Oblast is probably the closest to completed and/or detailed summaries. The summaries is basically just hitting the key events and mentioning geopolitical changes (like X towns captured, X government/military overthrown, ect…). Honestly, with how bad the list of invasions ·was beforehand, I feel like any length of detail is perfectly fine to add. This is basically a brand-new article. If you think like two+ paragraphs is needed, then you could do that.

Basically: Mentioning key points/events and temporary or permanent geopolitical changes in however much detail you feel like you should go. That probably didn’t actually answer your question about a template; because the “template”/idea was started yesterday and I am open to suggestions about it even. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Your biased sources in the page "Insurgency in the North Gaza Strip"

All the edits that you put in this page none of them have enough evidence or sources that support them besides Al Jazeera. It seems like all your edits are because of political motivation and not of trying to give actual info. רונלד15 (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The Al Jazeera sources only link to the videos describing said operations. There is a language barrier so I only know Arabic and English sources with ease. I’m assuming you are a Hebrew speaker and if you access Hebrew sources feel free to include them too The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Campaign of France

Hello, The Great Mule of Eupatoria. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Campaign of France".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have since abandoned the draft. If I were to work on it again, I will use the link you have provided. Thank you

~Fahad The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Battle of Beit Hanoun

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Battle of Beit Hanoun, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Siege of Khan Yunis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Siege of Khan Yunis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Siege of Khan Yunis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Siege of Khan Yunis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Nasser Hospital siege

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nasser Hospital siege, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)