User talk:DraKyry

Welcome!

Hello, DraKyry, 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! --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Dokka Umarov has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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 to 2010 Moscow Metro bombings, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lihaas (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Kurdistan Workers' Party, 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. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit

This edit removed good content [1] that accurately summarizes the entire bottom section of the Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi article. Statements in the lede that summarize heavily sourced content in the body are not required to be sourced in the lede. Russian claims to have killed Bagdadi have not been confirm or reported in RS. If Bagdadi is really dead it would be worldwide news like bin Laden's death. I request you restore the sentences you removed. You also need to remove this edit [2] and not threaten to edit war. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, please, don't be so agressive. I am sorry you took it as if I threatened an edit war. I said that due to agreed that he is, in fact, dead, that might spark an edit war. Nothing more. Secondly, I will say in my defense that I am really new to Wikipedia. If the administration thinks that it is too soon to call him dead - that;s understandable, but then I think that we should create a section (or paragraph, or whatever it's called) detailing this newest development about Russia and Iran's claim that he is really dead. This section surely needs to include also the previous (wrong) reports about his death. Finally, I understand that you disagree with me, but I don;t take "Russian claims to have killed Bagdadi have not been confirm or reported in RS. If Bagdadi is really dead it would be worldwide news like bin Laden's death." as an argument (also, what is RS?). Mr. Putin recently said this: imagine what would have happened if the US military said that al-Baghdadi is dead? It would be all over the news. But when Russia says the same - it's 'a claim', unconfirmed, and the western media ignores it. You can think about Putin whatever you want, but what is this believe that the Western media pro-eminent to all others? The chinese news reported his death as a fact all other the place. The Russian media did the same. The iranian media, as far as I understand, also did the same. Why do we/you believe, that Western media is better than chinese then? --DraKyry (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of general sanctions

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Some dude writing something

• If you are really new to Wikipedia, edit warring (as you are doing on CNN blackmail controversy) is not a good way to get your feet wet. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Sorry? Come again? --DraKyry (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

edit warring, pov

Your recent editing history at CNN blackmail controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You've made five reverts in less than an hour and are in breach of Wikipedia's 3RR policy. Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)