User talk:Mr.User200
Contents
- 1 Comment
- 2 Mr.User200, you are invited to the Teahouse!
- 3 Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- 4 Your userpage
- 5 Effects of My user page.
- 6 An offer
- 7 Hama and Homs offensive
- 8 A paranormal invitation
- 9 Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) reverts
- 10 Warned per the 3RR complaint
- 11 Warning about 1RR on Israeli-Arab conflict articles
- 12 Disambiguation link notification for July 28
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for August 12
- 14 August 2015
- 15 September 2015
- 16 October 2015 Aden missile attack
Comment[edit]
How do this works?User200.48.214.19 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "User200.48.214.19", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it resembles an IP address. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks never new it was not apropiate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple
User200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks never new it was not apropiate.
Mr.User200, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
![]() |
Hi Mr.User200! 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! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC) |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

-
-
-
-
- Hi Mr.User200! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-
-
-
-- 17:20, Wednesday, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Your userpage[edit]
As you can see I have removed a section of your userpage that contained prejudicial speech. Such content, regardless of what group it is directed at, is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. As such I would ask that you not restore it and refrain from any further remarks that mock specific groups of people. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I will take my measures.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest that your 'measures' are still a big fail. Please read up on what is unacceptable usage of your user page. You're still using your user page as a blog. I would have no objections if you could produce reliably sourced statistics for what are, essentially, offensive aspersions, but presenting a load of bollocks about you version of "The Truth" using a tiny My 2 cents disclaimer (let's regard it as your own little article for ranting about everything that is wrong with Wikipedia) is simply a really, really, really stupid idea. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the insults....Iam taking notes.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can and do understand that some of your comments strike others as problematic. Believe it or not, whether they are acceptable or not by policies and guidelines, they probably act to your disadvantage. The one that really I think is going to strike a lot of people as insulting is the one where you say editors here look down on others as "lesser mortals." Yeah, we do and have had and will continue to have people with a "more-intelligent-than-thou" attitude, and, for all I know, I might be counted among them by some, maybe even including you. I think it is problematic because, whether we like it or not, and I don't, we do have quite a few editors who are probably in the best interests of the encyclopedia a bit of single-purpose editors. Particularly when the purpose is dealing with a problematic topic. And at least a few of them have also gone out of their way to find virtually every damn source they can find on the controversial topic, however inconsequential they might seem to others. If you were to ever cross paths with any of them, and they saw your user page, the chances of their thinking less charitably of you than you would probably want are, as you indicate on this page, pretty damn good, actually. Alienating your co-workers, or fellow volunteers, from the word go generally isn't a really good idea. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, so kind. Really, Iam not considering you a negative user Jhon. Thanks for your analisys.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Effects of My user page.[edit]
An offer[edit]
Mr.User200, I'll make you an offer: if you stop using your talk page and user page as if Wikipedia were a webhost, and if you refrain from throwing around accusations and poor jokes (like those now removed from your user page), you will be left in peace. Wikipedia has plenty of interest in keeping editors who contribute decent content, and you have indeed contributed content. But this martyrdom stuff has to stop: you are not being persecuted, you are not being harassed--you're simply not playing by the rules. Avoiding future run-ins is easy: stop thinking that you're being oppressed, and talking as if you are being oppressed, because you are not. But we are not a webhost, we are not a free-speech zone; we are all volunteers on a non-governmental and non-commercial website trying to spread some knowledge to the world. Play by the rules and you'll never hear from us again, unless it is to thank you for your positive contributions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- It took me a lot of time to make the Small thumb boxes of well known figures (Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Galileo, etc), why you errased them all. You dont even left one??. Well regarding your Offer. I dont know I you have the power to control others to "left me in peace". Others could continue their attacks. And I know there are a lot of people offended with the Lobby Section, but they are the same as the Userboxes with a big red "X" over, that many Wikipedians uses, soo whats the point here? They are Anti something user boxes. Regarding the jokes some people dont like, thats because my different way of humor. Its my user page not theirs? If the jokes were against any WP policy. I am Sorry, Someone errased them at the time, just in time to avoid another linching to me. Thanks for that. No more jokes then. But my Robot, the Don Quixote painting are simple part of a User Talk pages, I have seen weidest things in Userpages. Like the horrible painting of Goya. Not offensive remarks against anyone. The same as the 5 Misconceptions of Wikipedia, they are sourced with the Wp Guidelines. Another point you cant control other Users, How i Know anyone else will attack me again. I am tired of looking all that stupid yellow Boxes next to my user with arrasement. But I knew from day one, I will encounter "Angry mobs" especially from the U.S because of the Lobby stuff rather than the Jokes. Because its like that many arrogant Users, Auto-Alleged intellectuals insults other users and go happily acting in a harsh way to the comunity. When this will stop wikipedia is not going anywhere beacuse of them not me, I dont stalk anyone in its Talk Page. I promise you that the jokes will not return. At least nation oriented ones/or any negative joke. But left my User page Front page in Peace. Any comments here.Please Regarding the Lobby what can I tell you, It exist if you are not a seasoned editor in Historic Articles regarding middle east. Try to ask someone about the well know problem of Arbitrated Articles regarding that conflict, of the curious case in witch all killings made by the IDF, during wars are not considered massacres, (in the article name) despite they were. And all the attacks against Israeli Civillians are considered massacres. Its a organized job of many Users. Wikipedia Admins should be looking seriously this instead of linching a single new editor. The same could be said about the new wave of extreme-right-wing editors, that its rampant in History related Articles, they look after other right wing editors to cover up their mess. And pose as democratic. History articles are as hot issue as religious ones. However the latter are not edited periodically since Religion have not changed a lot time by time, like the History one because of news, Books, Studies, papers. etcMr.User200 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- So do you think I should refrain from posting more stuff at my talk page and start editing articles since before all of this. I agree Liz i will restart my editing duties. Thanks.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
-
- The saddest part of this, Liz is that Mr. User has set him/herself up as the 'victim' of a self-fulfilling 'prophesy' without even attempting to be open-minded about the project and those involved. Considering that some of his/her few actual content contributions have been good, it's always a pity to watch potentially valuable editors feel that their preconceptions have been justified and take the easy way out by becoming one of the deriders who'll feel that they've given it a genuine try, only to be proven correct about their preconceptions. Still, as has been noted by the few actually even paying attention to Mr.User, it's his/her choice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
-
- What a lame coment Iryna, Iam happy with my edits and User page, its lokks cool to me. If you dont like it and feel ofended, you need profesional help. What a Pity?! You should try to count to ten and take a long breath that will be fine for your health.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Hama and Homs offensive[edit]
The toll (60-100) cited in the first source dated 20 April is for the WHOLE offensive, which encompasses the 40 dead from the second source (you added) dated 1 April. Thus adding up the 40, which was only for one day of the offensive, is double-counting. EkoGraf (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The second article claim fighting in other zones of combat between NDF and ISIS. There is no part in the last article witch claims those losses are the cumulative including the 40 reported before. Thats a conclusion you draw.A personal research. Just like the Army casualties that you have invented by adding different sources from different time space. Mr.User200 (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- First, are you aware you just broke the reference and the infobox? Second, you are incorrect. Source clearly states about the later fighting According to a military source at the Hama Military Airport, ISIS has suffered a significant number casualties that are estimated between 60-100 fighters – similar to the number of casualties they sustained in the previous offensives. And refrain from accusing someone of committing personal research and inventing info which is contrary to WP: Verifiability and WP: Good faith. If anything, your figure of 100-140 is not backed up by the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- The second article claim fighting in other zones of combat between NDF and ISIS. There is no part in the last article witch claims those losses are the cumulative including the 40 reported before. Thats a conclusion you draw.A personal research. Just like the Army casualties that you have invented by adding different sources from different time space. Mr.User200 (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
-
-
A paranormal invitation[edit]
Hello. I saw some of your recent edits and thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal. Joining the project doesn't entail any extra responsibilities; you'd just have to sign your name in the participants list, put the discussion page in your watchlist, and continue doing what you were already doing: editing. :) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks!!!Mr.User200 (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) reverts[edit]
First, this revert [1]. The campaign is not taking place in March and April alone anymore, but in May as well. Second, this revert [2]. Your combined totals are incorrect. You wrote 64 killed per pro-Hadi sources. The two sources indeed talk about 35 dead and 29 dead respectively, however, the first figure (35) is for dead on BOTH sides, not just for the Houthis. As for the second figure (29) it is claimed by officials...at no point is it stated they are pro-Hadi officials. EkoGraf (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
-
- Those official are Goverment Officials, Hadis Goverment not Houthis Oficials. Thats why that numbers are a complete mess, you are mixing once again numbers and giving a wrong figure.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- The first source clearly states the "pro-Hadi Oficial of 111th Brigade reported", I have discovered your edits focus in inflating Houthies losses using tricks and Bias, i dont know whats your agenda but i See a extreme pro-Saudi Bias in most of your edits, Disguised in a "R.S" remark.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I really have no idea what your problem is. But like I said at the article talk page, your accusations/conspiracy theories are inflammatory, offensive and violations of WP policy on civility and assuming good faith. I will explain it to you one last time. The pro-Hadi guy is claiming 35 dead on BOTH the Hadi and Houthi side. We already had the pro-Houthi guy saying they lost 20 of their fighters, so that leaves at least 15 potentially pro-Hadi fighters dead. This is in line with WP:CALC. Also, in your edit summary you mentioned casualties among AQ which I frankly have no idea where you got that from because its not mentioned anywhere in the source. EkoGraf (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have already given my apreciations, your Pro Saudi bias in all articles regarding that Operation are clear. Also the way of mixing & using diferent (Oposite) sources to fabricate a number are a clear ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Using Pro Hadi sources reported in a RS to disguise it, its not the way of reporting them.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your edit will be reverted since its an original Research and uses 2 diferent sources to build fabricated number.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- For the second time, read WP:CALC, not OR. And if we are to talk about fabricated, you are citing pro-Hadi sources for the Houthi number of dead when in fact one of the two sources is clearly cited as a pro-Houthi soldier. So who is fabricating now? PS In your haste this time you didn't even place pro-hadi etc in the correct place. EkoGraf (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have just now noticed that you violated the 3RR rule at the start of this edit war you initiated on 27 May. Considering I tried to explain to you the errors in your calculations and interpretations it is enough fair warning and I am obliged to report you to an admin for potential blocking. I myself will not make any more reverts because I myself don't want to break the 3RR rule. EkoGraf (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- For the second time, read WP:CALC, not OR. And if we are to talk about fabricated, you are citing pro-Hadi sources for the Houthi number of dead when in fact one of the two sources is clearly cited as a pro-Houthi soldier. So who is fabricating now? PS In your haste this time you didn't even place pro-hadi etc in the correct place. EkoGraf (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Warned per the 3RR complaint[edit]
Please see the result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr.User200 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Both warned). Be aware that admins can take action if they see battleground editing, which, if they read your user talk page, they might be alarmed about. If you find yourself having such a strong concern about some topic that you can't edit neutrally, you should probably avoid editing there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a look at User talk:EdJohnston#Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) reverts. Other editors complain about the sourcing of some of the casualty numbers. They are concerned that the numbers may not be attributed to the correct faction, Houthi or Hadi. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Warning about 1RR on Israeli-Arab conflict articles[edit]
All articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Arab-Israeli_Arbitration_Enforcement . Your latest edits on 2006 Lebanon War broke 1RR. If you continue this, you may be blocked from editing. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- User Amaya1 also 1RR my edits, does the current WP warning procedure contemplated that too?Mr.User200 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I warned him too, When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- User Amaya1 also 1RR my edits, does the current WP warning procedure contemplated that too?Mr.User200 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (May–December 2013), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Hellyer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Orion and Andromeda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015[edit]
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Paul Hellyer have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Not only has the Huffington Post already been rejected as a WP:RS, note, also, that "asserted" falls under WP:WEASEL. Please read WP:WORDS and familiarise yourself with what is considered an encyclopaedic tone and what is not. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- A Youtube Video could be used as a Reliable Source?. I have a link of him saying that. If that was caught on video with over 40 persons there hearing, could that be used as a Source. I think its important to include that since its very impresive to say the least. That a Ex-Goverment official (Canadian) acknowledge that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWSkjb2n2_g Mr.User200 (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) - Just changed to a Reliable Source I found. Thanks for the advice. Cheers Irina.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- A Youtube Video could be used as a Reliable Source?. I have a link of him saying that. If that was caught on video with over 40 persons there hearing, could that be used as a Source. I think its important to include that since its very impresive to say the least. That a Ex-Goverment official (Canadian) acknowledge that.
-
September 2015[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First Battle of Ypres 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(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
October 2015 Aden missile attack[edit]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of October 2015 Aden missile attack, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_2015_Aden_missile_attack&redlink=1.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
