User talk:Tobby72

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the great edits in the history section of Morocco. Really great job!MassNssen (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Tobby72, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Marriage. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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! A8UDI 14:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil[edit]

Hello, Tobby! Good morning! Or at least, I hope it's morning where you live! Anyway, the article Brazil is blocked due to a dispute over a content. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion to end it once and for all. In case you do not know much about the subject, I could explain it better to you. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

D.R.[edit]

Thank you Tobby, for [1]. SamEV (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Vote needed[edit]

Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Mop, three different mop handles.jpg Cleaning up award
Thanks for helping out at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup. It's tedious work, but your efforts are worth it. SmartSE (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

From wikiproject medicine. WP:MED --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles[edit]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice[edit]

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png Thanks for helping improve the Asian American article. Perhaps you maybe interested in WP:WPAA, whose scope is improving articles about Asian Americans? RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to editor Tobby72 for quality work improving a wide range of articles, and especially for adding well chosen pics! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup[edit]

Edit-clear.svg
Hello, Tobby72.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Lousiana: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Hi, thanks to add warnings on the vandal's Talk page whenever you revert, that normally helps to track the number of vandalous edits before ARV. Regards, kashmiri TALK 14:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
Thank you for adding images to the Mexican Drug War article. It looks a lot better now! ComputerJA (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You must stop damaging the article about a country as wonderful as Colombia with these images.[edit]

The article about Colombia is in the process of a best editing, this article is being improved gradually by true connoisseurs about Colombia, for example more than 70% of Colombians has never seen a guerrilla fighter in his life. The Colombian do not want the image of a criminal like Pablo Escobar appears in the article about the country.

If you want to see images of a criminal like Pablo Escobar and the murderous guerrilla you can search these images on the web. --Theryx7 (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have edited this article for months with the help of true connoisseurs of the country, although the article needs several improvements, but now you're ruining all the hours of work on this article. Please do not destroy the work of many people who have been improving the article about Colombia. --Theryx7 (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If again you add these images surely I and my group of collaborators will return to remove these images. Please I don't want an edit war. --Theryx7 (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure; the FARC guerrilla and drug cartel wars were international news and shouldn't be whitewashed. Tobby72 (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Images @ Nicolás Maduro[edit]

Please discuss at talk page and get a consensus for use before re-inserting. LGA talkedits 09:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 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:
  • rward)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Human sacrifice[edit]

Thuggee is not a Human sacrifice, nor Sati is any Human sacrifice, sati was done by the women for escaping from the islamic invaders, who used to rape women. And Thuggee cult only loot people, steal, and then kill, it wouldn't sacrifice itself, stop reverting. Discuss, before reverting, if you have any reason. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in community notice[edit]

Dear Tobby72

As a Wikipedian interested in African subjects and specifically Uganda, we thought you might be interested in the following opportunity.

WikiAfrica is looking for a Wikipedian in Community from Uganda to play a pivotal role in its Kumusha Takes Wiki project. This might be a position that you would consider. Or it could be the perfect opportunity for someone you know from this country, please spread the word! For more details, please look at this page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/call_for_wir_en/

If you have any questions about the above, please contact isla on isla [at] wikiafrica [dot] net : Isla Haddow (talk)

On thuggee[edit]

"at any rate, their religious creed and practices as worshipers of Kālī, the Hindu goddess of destruction, showed no influence of Islām." is obvious copy paste from britannica. William Rubinstein is a popular historian, since the claimed quotation cannot be found anywhere else, neither this book can be accessed, it should not be added. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote:[2] According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "Hindus appear to have been associated with them at an early period; at any rate, their religious creed and practices as worshipers of Kālī, the Hindu goddess of destruction, showed no influence of Islām."[3]
Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use as per WP:QUOTE.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nMMAk4VwLLwC&pg=PA82 is accessible.
"Although the thugs traced their origin to seven Muslim tribes, Hindus appear to have been associated with them at an early period." is obvious copy paste from britannica. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=nMMAk4VwLLwC&pg=PA82&redir_esc=y is not accessible. Whatever is copied from Britannica is not copvio at first, but what you are adding now is a copyvio, that you are exactly copypasting the same, just stop edit warring if you can't contribute anymore about it. I haven't totally reverted this time, but kept it out from copyvio and using same reference for 1 million figure. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

Hi Toby, I've just reverted your addition of several extra images to this article. The article already has lots of images and looks a bit over-crowded in my opinion, and it's customary to discuss significant changes such as this on the talk page first given the high profile of the article. I'd suggest that while there's scope to swap some new images in, increasing the total number at this point probably isn't justified. But other editors might have different views from me! I hope that this is OK. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Kerry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syrian refugees (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) 09:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding Poles/Slavs[edit]

Hey, I've noticed you are editing a few articles and making several new sections in talk pages regarding Nazis and Slavs. The reason a lot of your edits are being reverted is because they are already covered in the article or are not necessary to add into an article.

For example:

"The Nazis because of this declared Slavs to be untermenschen (subhumans)." is what is in the article but you wanted to edit "The Nazi ideology defined ethnic Poles as "sub-humans"." when Poles are Slavs and this is already mentioned in the article.

I do apologise for removing all of your edit regarding the role of sex and gender and have added it back in but tweaked it more accurately whilst using the source you did use.

This is nothing personal against you mate but we both are trying to achieve accurate reliable Wikipedia articles and overlapping stuff is not the way to go about it. If you want to discuss Nazis/Slavs discussion then we can on the relative talk pages. Once again, I have nothing against you. :)!--Windows66 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

On ROsinsky image, Impalement...[edit]

Believe me, I've searched all Internet to find some verification that this is an actual story from the 20th century (as main editor, I've been extremely restictive on adding 20th-21th century material), but I haven't found a single source of any "Captain Rosinsky". That's why I've previously deleted the image, but I won't get into an edit war with you, but I would be EXTREMELY grateful if you find an additional source which enhances the probability of it being real from being just, for example, a fake image, or a still photo from a movie. I know your edit is in good faith, but in contrast of MOST stories on Impalement, that of Captain Rosinsky has precious few additional verifications to it.Arildnordby (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

To make my point specific: You are not the only editor wanting this image within Impalement, just the most recent. I have RESIGNED from deleting it, I'm not going to remove it, but YET, I will be grateful if you can find some independent evidence about it depicting a REAL event.Arildnordby (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I researched a bit and found this: [4] -- Tobby72 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!!! That ref is sufficiently notable to be included which I have done in the caption text of image at Impalement. I am really grateful for this!Arildnordby (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WW II[edit]

Hello, if you have time please take a look at my edit from 09:54, 9 February 2014‎. I added a short paragraph on Nazi atrocities during the German Invasion, and added a picture of a civilian execution in the USSR invasion section. This edit was quickly reverted and labeled "Edit Warring". I was also asked to proved references… and when I agreed to do so, Nick-D dropped a label of "undue weight". I hate to say this, but I have a feeling the admin is trying to restrict some of this info being published on the page. Please advise. --Factor01 (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Factor01, discuss points, compromise, and try to reach consensus. WP:Consensus. There's WP:dispute resolution venues where you can try to get help. I understand your frustration regarding this issue. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, the new text, images and reference are posted on the talk page. Please review. --Factor01 (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

help[edit]

some user keeps removing the fact that Eugène Terre'Blanche was the founder of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) adding unreliable new sources and claming he was a founding member of Herstigte Nasionale Party althought we just joined it as a member and was an candidate of a local election in a town 46.45.142.226 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Rumsfeld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergey Ivanov (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) 08:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Image of Edward Snowden in the electric on his BLP[edit]

Hi, please seek consensus on talk before reinserting this image, thanks. petrarchan47tc 02:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

East Timor[edit]

Hi there - i hard reverted a revisions of this article to resinate references to SE Asia - it pulled out your recent changes but I believe I have reinstated your changes correctly. You may want to check. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Right Sector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gypsies (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) 08:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Andrii Deshchytsia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to EU Council
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Britain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (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) 08:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in.[edit]

You undid the delete of something I wrote and later deleted until consensus could be reached in 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. I was wondering if you were just reverting because it was an unsigned delete.(My mistake, sorry.) Or if you knew what I was talking about in the comment and had cause to disagree?Hilltrot (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern Front (World War I), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindenburg. 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) 08:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Responsibility to protect
added links pointing to Gaza and Juan Méndez
Balkans
added a link pointing to KFOR

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Excessively emotionäle contribution to the discussion.[edit]

Excessively emotionäle contribution to the discussion. GeehretrMr. President V. V. Putin are always the skillful politician. For,may, while a or other political discussion in the high circles,damage inflicted an adequate compensation are always suggested. And, accept Mr Putin counterpoint Gente, mostly, the life and the blood of the Russians and Russia nationals as a kind <Obolus's>. Well ... Moreover, a President Putin program to ensure all the unusable material from USSR times back to Russia for disposal bring(repatreieren). Free for as erritierte Mr Putin political opponents. <Übermässig emotionäle Beitrag ins Diskussion. Geehretr Herrn Präsident V.V. Putin sind immer der geschickter Politiker. Für , Möglicherweise, wärend eine oder andere politischer Diskussion in die Hochkreise , zugefügte Schaden werden immer ein angemessener Entschädigung vorgeschlagen. Und, Herrn Putin Kontragente akzeptieren , meistens, das Leben und das Blut die russen und Russland Staatsangehörigen als einer Art <Obolus’s>. Nun … Ausserdem , eine Präsident Putin Programm sorgen dafür das ganzes unbrauchbares Material aus UdSSR Zeiten zurück nach Russland zur Entsorgung bringen (repatreieren). Gratis für so erritierte Herrn Putin politische Opponenten. > Tobby1974 (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dutch East India Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia. 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) 09:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

US involvement in Ukraine[edit]

Hi Tobby, maybe you want to comment here? I started a topic on your behalf, but I don't have very much time to fight the case right now. Esn (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You're fighting a losing battle there, Esn. Wikipedia has too many nationalist POV-pushers. Tobby72 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aidar Battalion 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:
  • |volunteers = <300<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=A Guide to Ukraine's
  • [[File:Dog ;-) Aidar, Lugansk region 48.jpg|thumb|160px|Aidar Battalion, Luhansk region, 2 August 2014]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine[edit]

Hello! Could you express your opinion about the organization of the Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which provoked a little controversy these days (particularly in relation to the positioning of the "Russian military intervention")? If you wish to express an opinion, there is a discussion in the Talk Page of this template. Thank you! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

Your limit has been reached at Egypt. Please do not revert again but use the talkpage instead. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

About recent contributions[edit]

Greetings,
Thank you for your recent contributions on topics related to Egypt's foreign relations. However, many of the add info edits have been a clear misrepresentation of sources. Egypt didn't support anyone in the latest Gaza conflict, and this, along with the fact that it helped broker a ceasefire more than once should also be taken into consideration. Most of the sources (even the one you used) say or suggest that Egypt is "indifferent" towards Gaza because the government opposes Hamas, and I fail to see how that can be translated into support for Israel; otherwise this would be considered original research. You might want to take a look at this interesting article about Sisi's regional foreign policy from Libya to Syria and Iraq, which explains very well the Egyptian government's stance on Gaza. Egypt is no different in this regard than Mahmoud Abbas and many other Arab leaders who also oppose the Hamas government in Gaza. For example, please read the Guardian article that you used carefully, and you will notice that its whole context has nothing to do with the title, "Egypt’s decision to side with Israel has cost Gaza dear". It doesn't prove anything about any Egyptian support for Israel, even if Egypt's position was slightly in favour of Israel's interests. Furthermore, this Haaretz article requires subscription, which you used to justify the sentence: In response to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict and Egyptian support for Israel,(ref) Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Egyptian President el-Sisi an "illegitimate tyrant". Firstly, this is not only highly controversial, but also WP:UNDUE in an article about a country (like some of the other stuff you added), and is only relevant in Sisi's article. Second, as far as I can see, the source hardly reveals anything explicit about any "Egyptian support for Israel"; neither does this one (synthesis?). And even if, we must only take into account what the majority of the sources say. The destruction of the tunnels is merely related to Egypt's current insurgency[5] and crackdown on Islamist militants in the country. Nothing else. Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fitzcarmalan. Take a look at this articles about Egypt's regional foreign policy.
  • Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are seen as supporting Israel's crackdown on Hamas
  • Most Arab states are actively supporting Israel against the Palestinians -- and not even shy about it or doing it discreetly.
  • Some pro-government Egyptian talk shows broadcast in Gaza “are saying the Egyptian Army should help the Israeli Army get rid of Hamas,”
Tobby72 (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, Tobby. I am unfortunately getting the distinct sense that you haven't considered any of my concerns, so I will try to clarify a few things. Egypt is not an ally of Israel and nothing in these sources say that relations have "improved significantly". The 2014 conflict just ended two months ago and there is nothing particularly revealing about it yet regarding Egypt's policy on Gaza. Once again, the Egyptian government might have been satisfied with Israel's attacks on Hamas, but being anti-Hamas is by no means a synonym of anti-Palestine, and is certainly not being pro-Israel. This is very likely original research and these are just opinion pieces (not that reliable either). Plus, why did you specifically cherrypick this aspect of Egypt's stance in particular and ignored others? During the war, the Egyptian government opened the Rafah border crossing to treat wounded Palestinians,[6] [7] [8] sent 500 tons of aid to Gaza during the conflict [9] and condemned Israel's offensive numerous times.[10] [11] Why can't we also mention that relations have improved under Mohamed Morsi's presidency?
  • Morsi’s warm letter to (Shimon) Peres sparks anger and denial in Egypt"Great and good friend," Morsi wrote in the letter to his Israeli counterpart, "being desirous of maintaining and strengthening the cordial relations which so happily exist between our two countries, I have selected Mr. Atef Mohamed Salem Sayed El Ahl to be our ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary." The letter was initially denied by a Muslim Brotherhood official as a fabrication by the Times of Israel (see the article), but was later confirmed by Morsi's spokesman, and a senior Muslim Brotherhood figure has resigned from his post to protest this letter.
Now back to the sources you gave me. The France 24 one talks about Egyptian media presenters and columnists (irrelevant), and most of them usually do so because Hamas is an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood and because some of them also believe that Hamas was created by Israel to rupture the predominantly secular Palestinian resistance. The article's accuracy is also questionable, because very few in Egypt would take the risk of praising Israel and its leaders, and those who do are an extreme minority because they can be easily labelled as traitors. There were some Egyptian television hosts criticizing Hamas during Morsi's 1-year tenure as well, so there is nothing strange about anti-Hamas sentiment in the Egyptian media. If you also read the article to the end, you will see that general distrust of Palestinians was always common among Egyptians, even before the 2011 revolution. The second and third sources only talk about mutual interests. The only phrase that would attract the readers' attention in the beginning of the NYT article by David Kirkpatrick is: After the military ouster of the Islamist government in Cairo last year, Egypt has led a new coalition of Arab states — including Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — that has effectively lined up with Israel in its fight against Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip. But can you tell me what does "lined up" mean in the English language? Does it mean support or backing? Hardly, it merely means finding a common enemy with someone. Also, the rest of this article and the CNN one only reflect Egypt's conflict with Hamas and they rely mostly on opinion pieces. This has nothing to do with your original point → relations between Egypt and Israel have improved significantly following the coup. Once again, this is an article about an important regional country, where Sisi and Morsi were just two of its leaders who don't reveal anything historic yet about Egypt's regional agenda. Each aspect of foreign relations should be mentioned as briefly as possible, and unnecessary inclusions (especially controversial ones like this one) should be kept aside so that they don't give extra weight to insignificant and minority viewpoints. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

Nice work keeping wikipedia illustrated :)

Yablochko (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits.[edit]

You are one of the few reasonable editors still left who adhere to neutrality of articles and I thank you for this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV tag pushing by Tobby72. Thank you. McDonald of Kindness (talkcontributions) 21:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly discussed on the talk page here & here & here & here & here & here & here & here, and obviously no consensus was reached. By the way, did you read other editors' comments? This shows us that you have a lack of understanding of WP:GEVAL. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Opportunity to self revert[edit]

In this revert [12], in addition to all kinds of other problems (the usual POV pushing, removal of well sourced material, undoing of non-controversial improvements in style and grammar) you are also restoring links to an anti-semitic fringe conspiracy website, which may contain links to malware. Do you really think this is a reliable source for Wikipedia?

I would appreciate it if you self reverted your revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

GlobalResearch.ca site was removed.[13] Thanks for the warning, Volunteer Marek. By the way, how can you explain the reverting of well-sourced material?[14] - Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
That is the same material that in previous discussion WP:CONSENSUS rejected, per WP:UNDUE, and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But you already know this, since you participated in those discussions, so why exactly are you asking me? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Revert-wars & removal of sourced content do not help build "consensus": Discussion?, Discussion?. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion?, Discussion?, Discussion?, Discussion?, Discussion?. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
As you well know the issue of the polls was thoroughly discussed [15] and the WP:CONSENSUS was strongly against including these polls for a variety of reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned[edit]

You've been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#Haberstr, again (and Tobby72). User:Volunteer Marek has complained about your edits at 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Though I haven't looked into this report yet, the time may be approaching to consider sanctions of some parties under WP:ARBEE. You can respond to the complaint if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop.jpg You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Information icon You appear to be engaged in edit wars with other editors repeatedly inserting controversial propaganda-type material in the articles on War in Donbass, Crimean status referendum, 2014, Republic of Crimea, and Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the article talk pages. I have noticed that you are not doing this.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek & RGloucester & Toddy1 repeatedly removed well sourced material: here, here, here, here, here,here, and here. Period. You obviously lack a true understanding of WP:RS & WP:NPOV. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in Talk:Republic of Crimea#Public opinion poll, 16–22 January 2015 after receiving my message of 16:03.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look here[edit]

Feel free to add more evidence. Also a lot of articles about Nazi atrocities were distorted again. [16]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, how dare you keep slandering my name and making false allegations against me! Where have I ever distorted any articles about Nazi atrocities? You clearly have an agenda by constantly personally attacking me simply because I've reverted some of your edit which a previous sockpuppet has done before. I've never once distorted any Nazi atrocities and have contributed in articles such as the Holocaust, Racial policy of Nazi Germany and many others that deal with Nazi atrocities.--Hashi0707 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Italy irregular migration figure[edit]

Hi. I saw that you added statistics about the number of irregular migrants arriving in Italy by sea in 2014 to the African immigration to Europe article. Do you remember where you got the 141,484 figure for departures from Libya? I can't see that exact figure in the source you cited. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. My source says "Ogni volta che si parla di sbarchi ci vengono in supporto i dati Ismu (see Sbarchi al 2 marzo 2015 / Table No. 3) elaborati su dati del Ministero dell'Interno (si clicchi su "Sbarchi 2014). Guardando al Paese di partenza dei natanti si evince che su circa 170 mila sbarchi, circa 141 mila (83,2% del totale) sono partiti dalle coste libiche." -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I saw that, but I wondered how you got from "circa 141 mila" to 141,484. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tobby72. Any idea where the exact figure came from? If not, I'll just replace it with "around 141,000". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, exact figure came from: http://www.ismu.org/irregolari-presenze/ Excel table Sbarchi al 2 marzo 2015 -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This, then. I'll add that source to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pied-Noir 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:
  • lr=&ei=QLNpR-HDBIneiQG5gsl5&sig=V_OVFPba2K9j2CuPfiPugEv0ibY#PPA31,M1 The Agony of Algeria]] By Martin Stone published by Columbia University Press, 1997. ISBN 0231109113, page 32 (source for

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

==Y Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pomors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chukotka (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) 09:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Donbass is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I'm afraid that your recent edits are possibly violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. Tendentious editing, WP:NPOV, WP: RS. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not think so. If you really believe that someone violates policy in this subject area, please report him/her to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Slow motion edit warring is still edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, isn't that the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?
I see no substantive argument against the material other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT[17], [18], [19], [20], [21].
There is also ongoing discussion regarding the "Chechen and Muslim paramilitaries" section. — [22], [23]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop using dishonest WP:ES[edit]

Your behaviour is not acceptable. What does this edit summary have to do with the content you inserted? The only discussions taking place on the War in Donbass surrounds casualty figures and Right Sector and RNU inclusion in the infobox. The content you inserted had already been deemed as being WP:UNDUE. Your POV-pushing using duplicitous edit summaries has been noted time and time again in multiple articles. Enough of trying to game the system, please. We all get frustrated over getting embroiled in the process of consensus building, as well as whether we feel consensus has been arrived at in a fair manner, but under no circumstances does that excuse resorting to dishonest editing practices (read as 'lying').

Yes, the content you added after POV pushing this content, then again here, and then again here (without actually pointing out every diff where you'd reinserted it before and between) was discussed here... so why have you jumped in with reiterating content last discussed on 21 August on 5 September while the talk page discussion has moved forward dramatically parsing other issues? "... see talk"? Really? Which talk? Where? When? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The content you inserted had already been deemed as being WP:UNDUE. — Are you sure? - [24]. So I ask again... please explain how my additions specifically violate Wikipedia policies on neutrality.
We report what reliable sources say. See Talk:War in Donbass — POV deletion of cited text (22:57, 30 August 2015) and Talk:War in Donbass — Islamic Battalions – WP:RS (09:59, 5 September 2015). -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I am absolutely certain. One editor, agreed to a redacted form of the content and no one else did. In the meantime, you sat back for a couple of weeks before reinserting it. Take it to the article's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You have probably missed this one : Talk:War in Donbass — Islamic Battalions – WP:RS and this Talk:War in Donbass — POV deletion of cited text -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I honestly think that we should move the discussion back to the article's talk page. There have been several issues tackled simultaneously, and I saw no consensus for the inclusion of the content. Discussions have been moving back and forth and carried over into sections not dealing with the content at issue... The article has been locked down and we're not going to form consensus one way or the other from your talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek destroys information. Help![edit]

Hi. Help please with editing information in Crimea and Republic of Crimea. Volunteer Marek destroys info in his strange opinion. Please help with saving different points of view. Nobody destroys articles except him.LeoKiev01 (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II#The current title[edit]

You were involved in the article; I invite you to comment at the ongoing discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined[edit]

The Ukrainian conflict arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined and removed. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Al-Nusra Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bounty
Bashar al-Assad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bounty

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Celik a GW?![edit]

Hi Tobby72,
I've noticed your edit:

I've tried - several times - to write Celik is a GW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown/Archive_2#Grey_Wolves.2C_sources_in_English

It was constantly erased. I do not realy understand why, i know Wikipedia has too many nationalist POV-pushers, but this is really disgusting. I had several kafkaesque moments there ;-) We will see when my last addition will be reverted. Thanks for your help.--79.223.6.216 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Crimea talk page[edit]

To: Iryna Harpy

Cc: Tobby72, Haberstr, Moscow Connection

Iryna, your recent posting on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation contains personal attacks on WP users Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection. You accused these WP users of "POV pushing", "disruptive editing", and presenting arguments with "no good faith".

Wikipedia article talk pages are for constructive discussion of article content, not for accusations against individuals. Are you trying to discourage comments about content from people whose views differ from your own? If you are not trying to discourage comments, please make this clear as soon as possible, by withdrawing the personal attacks you have made. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin). Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to this. That sounds desperate. I do not use "retired" or "long wikibreak" templates. Template tells that I will be missing for "an undefined period of time", such as a few hours. I also mark it as "online" and "offline" in edit summaries. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
You simply do not listen. I suggested on ANI that people should NOT discuss other contributors on article talk pages. And what did you do [25] ? My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I just responded to the accusations of Volunteer Marek[26]. BTW, he has obviously violated 1RR. – diff, diff. Tobby72 (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This is very simple. If you think that someone violated WP:RR or whatever, you should bring a complaint to WP:3RR or other appropriate noticeboards. But I think we both know that you will be probably sanctioned yourself for whatever you blame others. Fueling your complaints on wrong pages (such as article talk pages) is disruptive and WP:POINT. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. I am not violating WP:1RR, WP:3RR, or WP:GANG. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are very careful not to break the letter of WP:1RR or WP:3RR, but that doesn't change the fact that you're breaking WP:EDITWAR, by engaging in slow moving edit wars over prolonged periods of time. On at least three different articles: War in Donbass, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. On the first two this has been going on for more than a year! Which is, frankly, outrageous, that you've been allowed to get away with it. Look, it's quite simple - you need to get consensus for your changes rather than edit war. Coming back once per day to do your one revert, or once per week to try and restore the same material that has been rejected, over and over and over and over again IS disruptive and it IS edit warring though combined with an attempt to WP:GAME the rules.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
That's really just Wikilawyering. Consensus is against you. – diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff (6 different editors). -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

personal attacks and incvility[edit]

Re [27] I believe I've asked you before not to mimic my edit summaries as that's obviously uncivil and obnoxious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, how many times do I have to ask you to stop doing this [28]? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your notice on my talk page[edit]

You should not edit war/revert to your preferred version text related to a subject currently under RfC [29], [30]. The text should remain exactly as it was in the beginning of the RfC. Moreover, starting a new parallel discussion when the RfC did not go your way is a WP:Forum shopping. You do it in a subject area covered by discretionary sanctions related to EE(Russia) and the Syrian war... My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Misleading warning. The RfC statement is "Should the title of this section (as of 20:56 April 3) be "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" or should it be "Reports of war crimes"
You, Volunteer Marek and Iryna Harpy keep removing this text: the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Jaysh al-Islam militants were accused of using civilians and prisoners as human shields, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have supported Jaysh al-Islam, etc.
WP:SEEKHELP – "If your dispute is related to the application of a specific policy or guideline (for example, WP:NPOVTITLE), you may wish to post in one of these noticeboards (below) to get input from uninvolved editors familiar with that topic." ---- Tobby72 (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
People keep removing this text because it is about crimes committed by Islamic extremists, not by Russian army (the title of the page is "Russian military intervention ..."). This belongs to a different page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
No. People keep removing this text because .... IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
-- Tobby72 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As I already said, these sources tell about ISIS militants preventing movement by people during attacks by Syrian, French and Russian aviation. If anything, this is crime by ISIS militants. Why place it on the page about Russian military campaign? This should be included either on the page about human rights on the ISIS-controlled territories, or on the page about war in Syria in general (Syrian, French and Russian aviation). My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Crimea annexation RFC[edit]

I've opened an RFC on Talk: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on the question

"Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection Crimean public opinion be moved into the subsection Crimean status referendum?"

As you recently edited this talk page, I thought you might like to share your views. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Russian military intervention in Syria -- human shields[edit]

Hello Tobby72,

My attempts to discuss this problem on the article talk page have not gone well. I'm being told to stop beating the dead horse. Do you agree? I see you've completed edits to a dozen articles in the time I've spent arguing this one point. But, IMHO, our opponents' policy-based arguments have absolutely no merit, and they are trying to accuse US of bad faith editing behavior.

Can anything further be done about this? The arbcom case on VM and MVBW said that discretionary sanctions should be used to deal with further misbehavior from VM and MVBW; could that possibly work? Or do you have some other strategy to fix the problem? JerryRussell (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's amazing... ok, not amazing, but rather "telling", how fast you went from pretending to be an uninvolved third party to talking about "our opponents" and making threats. You're not very good at this. Next time around try to keep a low profile first and practice appearing neutral. Maybe hire a training coach for that latter one, it's sort of hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Volunteer Marek, I've never intended to represent myself as an uninvolved third party. I came to the discussion based on Tobby72's request for assistance at the NPOV notice board, and I believed from the beginning that the "human shields" material belongs in the article. It is not considered a threat to discuss options to pursue normal Wiki dispute resolution processes. If you have concerns about my behavior, wouldn't it be more appropriate to discuss on my talk page, rather than Tobby72's? Thanks to Iryna Harpy, I learned something new today. JerryRussell (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Another newbie question: if I don't put user:Tobby72 in double brackets, he doesn't necessarily know I'm trying to get his attention at his own talk page? Do the double brackets implement a 'ping', or is the @ sign also necessary, or useful for some purpose?

"Can anything further be done about this?" — I don't know. Maybe Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe? I was advised "to bring NPOV questions to WP:NPOVN" – see "Statement by Rhoark" — "I encourage editors with any POV to bring NPOV questions to WP:NPOVN, though its best to be very specific about the issue when doing so. NPOVN threads attempting to settle the whole topic area in one go have been tried and went nowhere. I'd also be happy to give my take if anyone's not sure whether or how to raise a particular matter at AE."

There have been several failed attempts to solve NPOV problems in the past. For example:

"Also, do you run a conspiracy blog or something?" — Volunteer Marek (diff). This is a textbook example of a personal attack, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's an honest question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Tobby72, thanks for all the links to all the earlier dispute resolution cases. Contrary to Volunteer Marek's assertions, I really have only been doing this a few months, and aside from having learned some of the WP: jargon, there are still huge gaps in my understanding about how these various dispute resolution forums really work. I find it rather amusing that Wiki claims to have this policy saying Wiki is not a battleground, when so many users obviously treat it as one (see WP:MMO). Do you think this particular issue (human shields) is one of the bigger NPOV problems that you've had, or is this a relatively minor example of a much wider problem in the Eastern Europe articles? This dispute resolution process is nothing if not time-consuming, so it seems to me that one would want to choose one's dispute resolution endeavors carefully.
In the AE cases I read, the admins seem to take WP:BOOMERANG very seriously. It seems to be a big mistake to engage in any kind of edit warring. Also, I have the impression that over time, there have been many editors supporting your positions, but they never seem to show up for DR. I wonder if they've been pinged? "Canvassing" is bad, but there seem to be other forms of "collaboration" that are good.
@Volunteer Marek: asked about my blog. I am editing with my real-life name, and I have a blog that deals with elite criminality and State Crimes Against Democracy, also pejoratively known as "Conspiracy Theory". I'm not trying to hide anything, if VM was really curious he could've just followed the link to my blog. It seems to me that WP:FRINGE topics are pretty fairly presented here overall, I feel that "Due Weight" considerations are quite appropriate in this context, and I'm hopeful that I can make useful contributions.
Is it considered a usual practice to have a link to one's blog from a WP user page? Policy seems confusing, and some IP editor blanked out my user page this morning, admonishing me with WP:NOTHERE. I posted the information as a declaration of possible COI so that I can't be accused of hiding anything, but perhaps I'm better off without declaring my POV so openly. JerryRussell (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You realize that you're quoting Wikipedia essays that even I, who've been here for 11 years, don't know about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
LOL! I went looking for something making fun of wp:Battleground, and sure enough I found it, WP:MMO. That would be one you've never heard of, right?
But, perhaps this could be a sign that it's time for me to go write a new article for my blog, and give Wiki a break... JerryRussell (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
After the Arbitration Enforcement request [31] was rejected despite overwhelming evidence of wanton wrongdoing, it seems the only way to deal with the "Gang" is to launch a new Arbitration request. The end result would most probably be some form of bans for the worst web brigadists. 77.93.29.14 (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@JerryRussell: this particular issue (human shields) is a relatively minor example of a much wider problem in the Eastern Europe articles. This is a long-term problem: see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. User:Radeksz (Volunteer Marek's old user name) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring, abuse of dispute resolution processes, proxying for a blocked user and treating Wikipedia as a battleground (Case opened on 00:07, 18 September 2009). -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Just remember that if somebody has a German nickname on Wikipedia doesn't mean his German.Or if it is sounding Chinese that he is from China.Cheers Tobby72.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Tobby, I would appreciate it if:
1) You stopped bad-mouthing me to other users. Personal attacks made in conversations with others are still personal attacks. Lying and false aspersions are still lying and false aspersions.
2) You stopped using my old username. I changed it for a reason. A courteous, polite and civil thing is to respect such a wish. Sure, your failure to do so may not be strictly speaking WP:OUTING but it is prima facie evidence of intentional incivility.
Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tobby72, I've been reviewing all these DR cases. I think a crucial question is whether the process has a definite outcome. On the NPOV, RS and OR noticeboard, and article talk pages, the discussions aren't normally brought to a close. The assumption seems to be that by going through the process, reasonable people will come to a solution. Whereas with RfC and AfD, it's customary for an uninvolved editor (often, an admin) to close the discussion, and then it's considered settled unless there's some basis to challenge the closer (which rarely happens.) Volunteer Marek was smart to use an RfC to decide the issue of the section title; and he was also clever to pose the question so that the more important issue (human shields) went undecided.

Conduct based cases don't really seem to be very effective, for a variety of reasons. JerryRussell (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@JerryRussell: You have already gotten yourself into the thick of casting WP:Aspersions. I suggest that you desist from overstepping the line between AGF comments and blatant finger-pointing as to WP:GAMING. As it stands, your 'dissection' of process is right off base, and regular editors are getting somewhat irritated over encountering your aspersions. Enough, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and as a P.S., conduct cases are problematic because they have a tendency to end up in a WP:BOOMERANG... But, if you wish to open one, please do. If not, stop being intentionally disruptive. Bear in mind that Clean hands is very much the order of the day when it comes to conduct cases. Oh, and Tobby72 was invited to start the RfC, but failed to act on the prompt. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that bringing back very old cases and grudges (and this had happened more than 6 years ago) is actually a proof of problematic behavior by people who bring such cases. If there is something really problematic in recent editing by whoever, please bring it to WP:AE or any other appropriate noticeboard. But if you can't, please stop your forum shopping and accept WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • JerryRussel, thank you for your support. You're right, he was very rude to me. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ordnungspolizei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-partisan (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) 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)