User talk:Greyshark09/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Greyshark09. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year!

Greyshark09,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Nykterinos (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

@Nykterinos: Thank you - wish you too!!!GreyShark (dibra) 19:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Exodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahmose. 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) 09:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Although not required, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greyshark09.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Will chitchat a little with the conspiracists over there.GreyShark (dibra) 05:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jordanian war crimes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten yourself in a little mess with talk page moves. I think I sorted everything out for you. Let me know if I missed anything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, was about to fix it mself. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 17:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

First: you don't need to get upset about my closing the rename discussion on the Turkey/PKK talkpage. I said I'd do the rename "if there's no opposition within the next 24 hours". But there is opposition: from you. So that means I won't do the rename — at least, not until a consensus is reached. You're welcome to be part of the discussion.

Second: actually, I am an admin. DS (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: thank you for the notice, but since you are an administrator you should better know that rename/move procedures should last for one week in order to create a proper discussion on such a controversial issue. As you can see - the eventual outcome of that procedure was quite different than the original proposal ("Kurdish conflict" or later "Kurdish-Turkish conflict"). Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 06:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You have recently made an edit for the Governance of the Gaza Strip. The infobox is nice but why is the date "18 March 2013" is used to describe the establishment? What happened in 18 March 2013? It is said in the article that it was controled by Hamas's leader since 2007...--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My fault - need to correct.GreyShark (dibra) 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Greyshark. Can I ask you the reason for this edit? I based the caption (and the map) on UNHCR's latest yearly report, which splits the 19.5 million refugees worldwide into "14.4 million under UNHCR’s mandate" and "5.1 million Palestinian refugees registered by UNRWA" (page 2). On Commons you wrote that "it is not only Palestine refugees, as UNRWA also treats 400,000 Sahrawi refugees", but I can't find any source saying that UNRWA also treats Sahrawi refugees: UNRWA (and the related article on WP) says it's "unique in terms of its long-standing commitment to one group of refugees" [1] and Sahrawi refugees (90,000-165,000, not 400,000) are registered under UNHCR's mandate, as you can see on page 52 of UNHCR's report. So, I would restore "Palestinian refugees" (or "Palestine refugees", but they are all Arab Palestinians, aren't they?), as it's more accurate. Thanks, Nykterinos (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think i was mistaken with UNRWA and Sahrawis - apparently Sahrawis are under UNHCR, though both Palestine refugees' and Sahrawi refugees' status is inherited. I would however keep only the UNRWA link and not link Palestine refugees, because it is not the topic of the map. You don't typically say - "Map of the world - excluding map of the Moon" (because many would misread and confuse that this is "the map of the moon").GreyShark (dibra) 18:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue who are Arab Palestinians and Palestine refugees is complex. It is factual that today a certain percentage of people under UNRWA mandate are not Palestinians or their descendants, as the UNRWA aid is provided to all refugee camp residents whether Palestinian, descended from Plestinian (partial or full) or else. Most UNRWA-treated persons are Arabs for sure. If i recall correctly around 5-10% of 5 million UNRWA mandate people are not having any Palestinian connection (mostly in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon). There is also a question of original identity of certain share of Palestine refugees as many had been various stateless persons at the time of the war, and we see today a similar thing with Syria refugees. Maybe better not getting into it...GreyShark (dibra) 18:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As for the caption, I still think it's better to follow our source. Currently, the caption reads: "...according to UNHCR data (excluding refugee status persons under UNRWA mandate)". Since all refugees under UNRWA mandate are registered as Palestine refugees, and our article explains who they are, it's better to link it, also to make clear that only a specific group of refugees is excluded (for those who don't know which refugees are under UNRWA mandate). Specifying that those refugees are excluded is necessary, because, if they were included, the map would look very different: Palestine/Israel (actually, mandatory Palestine) would figure as the first country of origin, Jordan as the first country of asylum, etc. Nykterinos (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Greyshark, I’ve always worked well with you and I appreciate your contributions, so I really can’t understand your insistence on removing any mention of Palestinian refugees from the caption of the map I created. The caption should help the reader understand what they are looking at, and it’s essential to clarify that the map doesn’t take into account all the world’s refugees, but only those under UNHCR’s mandate, excluding a sizeable number of refugees under UNRWA’s mandate. The UNHCR’s report the map is based on obviously does so; even if we wrote “refugees under UNHCR’s mandate” (which would be correct), the reader would be left wondering if there are any other refugees under someone else’s mandate. Restoring at least a mention of “refugees under UNRWA’s mandate” would be better than nothing, but why hide the fact that UNRWA takes care of a specific group of refugees, i.e. Palestinians? Specifying it would make the caption more useful for the reader. Thanks, Nykterinos (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. This editor has shown a pattern of trying to censor certain aspects of the IP conflict that he does not like. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a strong deja-vu feeling here from our previous interactions. However, don't be stressed over editing the Israel Palestine conflict topic too much - essentially Wikipedia is about community editing and one has to respect majority, even if it doesn't fit his opinions/beliefs. Considering your previous experience i strongly feel that you would be able to return editing and interacting by Wikipedia guidelines ASAP. Best. Your wikicolleague.GreyShark (dibra) 13:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that getting rid of duplicate articles will help us all greatly. Would you support a single centralized discussion of this, covering all the major areas of duplication, at WT:IPCOLL? I believe we need to help the community to see the scale of the problem in all its glory. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I would support the process itself. Not another prolonged discussion. Talks won't get us further.GreyShark (dibra) 06:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dar al-Islam. 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) 12:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the History of Israel page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey GS. Thought I'd invite you to join this initiative, which I created along the lines of the ongoing conflicts one. Cheers, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Here's a book that might be useful to you on this subject - it's succinct, and Walton is RS, and it's recent. PiCo (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Syrian Opposition, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Syrian opposition page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Syrian opposition page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:7th century in the Rashidun Caliphate, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If "Southern Syria" first appeared in 1918, why did you add it to a rabbi who died in 1545? In 2013 Jerusalem was in Israel/West Bank. In 1545, in Palestine or Land of Israel or Holy Land. Chesdovi (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Southern Syria refers to Southern Ottoman Syria see [2]; Palestine, Land of Israel and Holy Land are geographic and religious terms, not administrative.GreyShark (dibra) 10:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chesdovi: seriously, you are a too experienced user to make such a mistake as relying on unsourced information in Wikipedia.GreyShark (dibra) 10:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You changed "Palestine" to "Southern Syria" but Southern Syria is a much larger area. How do you know that Safed was the "largest Jewish community in Southern Syria" at the time? Chesdovi (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem? Jews never advocated for "autonomy in Palestine" (if any then "land of Israel"). The autonomy was proposed to be in Galilee alone, so it is pointless.GreyShark (dibra) 17:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you insist that the population of the Southern Levant to be retroactively branded "Palestinian" before modern era? it has never been so prior to 20th century. I specifically oppose this due to unsourced utilization of the term and also since in old Semitic "Palestinian" basically means "invader" (Plessti), and it completely corrupts the meaning.GreyShark (dibra) 17:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you just answer how you know that Safed was the "largest Jewish community in Southern Syria" at the time? What about Aleppo and Damascus? Chesdovi (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Southern Syria is roughly southern Levant (Cisjordan and Transjordan). Aleppo and Damascus are not in Southern Syria in any case.GreyShark (dibra) 17:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. BTW, please see sources provided at Template talk:Did you know/Palestinian rabbis regarding renewed Jewish rule in the whole of Palestine. And I "insist" on "Palestinian" because that is how RS describe such people. Chesdovi (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Whole Palestine" (from the river to the sea) is an Arabist irredentist term.GreyShark (dibra) 19:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Here you insert "Muslim populace", yet the source (Jewish Encyclopedia?) does not mention "Muslim". It seems strange that Muslims would take revenge for the murder of a monk. Where did you get that Muslims specifically perpetrated the attacks and pillaging? Chesdovi (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The text is not sourced apparently. Do you assume that the Damascus affair didn't result in violence by Muslims? Was it by Christians or Druze? I'm really doubtful...GreyShark (dibra) 17:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If in doubt, leave it out. Don't add OR that the mob was Muslim without providing a source. Chesdovi (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right, it is indeed a corrupted citation of Jewish encyclopaedia.GreyShark (dibra) 20:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you use "Land of Israel" as opposed to "Southern Syria"? Chesdovi (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Because Rishon LeZion is a position relevant to the Land of Israel. If you are a Jew you should know that Rishon LeZion (in Zion meaning Land of Israel here) is not Rishon in Southern Syria (political-geographic sense).GreyShark (dibra) 20:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

So why not use Zion? Chesdovi (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Because Zion can mean several things (Mount Zion, Jerusalem, Land of Israel or Jewish nationalist concept). It is also rare to find "Zion" to be used in geographic sense in English (which is however OK in Hebrew), so Rishon LeZion is to be translated as the "First in the Land of Israel".GreyShark (dibra) 20:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do we not use the administrative term in use during 1882 here? Chesdovi (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Yishuv is defined according to the borders of the Land of Israel, thus Jewish settlements are to be counted accordingly in geographic sense. At the time Land of Israel was often referred to as Southern Syria, but administratively was in composed of Mutassarifate of Jerusalem (from 1870s), a southern part of Syria Vilayet: Sanjak of Acre (at 1882 under Syria Vilayet) and Sanjak of Nablus (also Syria Vilayet at the time) and Mutasarrifate of Karak (until 1895 part of Syria Vilayet).GreyShark (dibra) 08:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping clean up that article. It's been a problem for a long time. I've given up on making several changes at once. Instead, I have a draft that I've been working on when I can. When I'm finished, I'll just copy the entire thing to the article. But anyway, thanks for working on it. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Enlargement of the Arab League into Member states of the Arab League. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian government, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of a Module:Kurdish Insurgency Detailed Map? I've been thinking about one for a while, but right now it looks like Iran is getting involved, making all four Kurdistan regions more or less part of the separatist conflict. I'm referring to this and this.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: i know the violence is escalating in West Iran; i'm not however sure this is an organized rebellion. We can surely first make an article on April 2016–present clashes in West Iran concerning PAK and PDKI recent engagements with Iranian military. In case those escalate over this month and especially if PJAK joins - it would warrant to start a map.GreyShark (dibra) 13:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll keep track of the situation. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's details about yesterday's clash. [3] --Monochrome_Monitor 14:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I started the article.GreyShark (dibra) 15:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Big news on turkish kurds [4] Things are getting pretty crazy. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Could I have your opinion on something. Given the current period of the Syrian civil war is no longer marked by the Russian intervention (which has been downsized significantly since the liberation of Palmyra and the declaration of a partial withdrawal) and the current phase of the conflict is more noted for the country-wide cease-fire, should we note that change at Template:Campaignbox Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War? We ether change the heading of the campaignbox to Russian intervention and second cease-fire (September 2015–present) (since there was that first cease fire in 2012) or split the campaignbox and create a new one titled Russian withdrawal and second cease-fire (with the starting date being February 2016 when the truce started or March 2016 when the withdrawal started). What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: certainly split. The Russian intervention phase is over and the second cease-fire is over as well.GreyShark (dibra) 13:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so what start date? February 2016 (27 Feb) when the truce started or March 2016 (15 March) when the Russian withdrawal started? I'm rather inching towards the withdrawal (since Palmyra was heavily part of the intervention but took place after the start of the truce) but not sure. EkoGraf (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The "truce" was limited only to Ba'ath-Opposition fighting. Other engagements continued, so it was a very local cease-fire, though certainly important for the course of the war. Anyway, the cease fire is over. I don't mind whether you go on February or April 2016 - both are fine, but split is a must - a new phase has begun.GreyShark (dibra) 14:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Still not sure whether its over or not since it seems to be still holding, for the most part, in Daraa, Homs, Damascus and parts of Hama. And we got no official reliable sources clearly saying the ceasefire is over. In any case, I think of something regarding the split. Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:Boko Haram insurgency/Archive 1. Since you had some involvement with the Talk:Boko Haram insurgency/Archive 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed your AFD nomination for this article, because you did not specify why you believe the article should be deleted. On this topic of all topics, I didn't want to parse your comments together into a rationale that might not reflect your position - better to re-nominate and follow the steps indicated at WP:AFDHOWTO. Or, give me your reasoning here or at the talk page or at my talk page and I'll complete the nomination for you. Whatever works. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not interrupt the procedure in the middle. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 14:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Now fully submitted.GreyShark (dibra) 16:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Had you been actively editing the debate page, I would have left it alone. But your contribs list showed that you were editing on unrelated pages, so it seemed that either a script had malfunctioned (which happens) or you had simply not completed the AFD. It sat orphaned long enough for the bot to add it to WP:BADAFD, which is too long for an article - even an iffy one - to sit with a deletion tag and no debate. So I interrupted nothing. Cool it with the accusations please. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

UltraExactZZ I think we are not on the same frequency... Which accusations are you referring to?GreyShark (dibra) 13:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"Please do not interrupt the procedure in the middle.", above. I didn't. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did remove the AFD at the first time, so i did ask (politely) to let me complete the procedure at the second time. I fully understand your reasons for the AFD removal - but as you can witness the initiated process was very much required.GreyShark (dibra) 14:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Following your edit [5], you are required to follow a couple more steps. The page now states "If you have just labeled this page as a potential copyright issue, please follow the instructions for filing at the bottom of the box."

It is absolutely impossible that this is a copyvio - the page history shows it has gone through 113 edits from a very small base, you added 30% of the text yourself, and all the images were self-made.

You should look at Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works: "Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible for copyright at all."

Your continued attempt to attack this template suggests you wish to hide facts and obfuscate history for your some spurious political agenda. Censoring information is an impediment to progress. Could I suggest you spend some time thinking about WP:IPCOLL.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

sure.GreyShark (dibra) 16:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation, being illegal, is obviously a serious issue. Making Wikipedia content inaccessible to readers is also a serious issue. So please take the time to carefully explain and justify your edit on the template's talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly put some more effort into this investigation. The copyvio is so evident to me (in earlier versions of the map collage), that i decided to note this to administration.GreyShark (dibra) 13:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This comment is either deceitful or ignorant. I will try to remain open minded. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I like you too.GreyShark (dibra) 14:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It is however strongly recommended that your actions be procedurally legal (which i hope is the case here - at the least the template is misleading in naming, at the suspected worst it is a copyviolation in one of its previous versions). Considering your history, the blatant disagreement to follow wikipedia guidelines is somewhat of a problem to look into.GreyShark (dibra) 14:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It is likely strongly recommended that you do not abuse rules to remove material from Wikipedia. This looks like such an abuse of process, given the seemingly non-stop attempts at removing the word Palestine and the multiple attempts to remove this very template, that I am tempted to bring it to AE. Copyright is a yes/no thing, and claiming a copyright violation when there is none after having multiple times attempted different methods to hide a template is quite the abuse of procedure. nableezy - 16:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In your place i wouldn't do that. You know why.GreyShark (dibra) 19:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This explanatory note is at Category:History of Israel

"This category is about the history of the modern State of Israel, from the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948 to the present. Articles referring to Zionism before 1948 are in Category:Zionism. Events in Jewish history in the region preceding the modern Zionist movement belong in Category:Land of Israel. The pre-1948 history of the region is found in the articles Land of Israel and History of Palestine and in the Category:History of Mandatory Palestine."

Thanks. Editor2020 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cyprus peace process, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Even one hour ago, people were still arguing whether this was a terror attack at all. How is one to know what is associated to Islamic State or not? Check the logs: people have questioned whether this is terrorism, whether this is related to the Islamic State, etc!

The article is still titled "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" and there is a note that reads "This article documents a recent mass shooting. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (June 2016)".

This is a very unfair accusation that I have broken IRR.XavierItzm (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: My friend, i left a notice and apparently this is a redundant notice since you have already been 1RR warned on ISIL topic 3 months ago. Notwithstanding that, i'm not going for asking to apply sanctions on you due to the reasons mentioned by yourself - a very recent and still unclear event. Please just mind the 1RR on ISIL-related articles for the future.GreyShark (dibra) 18:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand, I have no interest in getting banned, and now that I know the page on the Pulse attack falls under the same rules as the rest of the Islamic State pages, I shall mind any sort of reverts! May I suggest adding a note regarding IRR at the top of the page, for the benefit of others? Also, perhaps removing the IRR notices to the other 3 guys? Best, XavierItzm (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your notice wasn't removed. It is just that you already have a valid warning standing. Anyway, the warning is just a warning - nothing actual, unless you repeatedly break the rules on purpose.GreyShark (dibra) 18:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this part of Wikipedia's sanction noticing and I guess you're the one I should discuss this with. Anyways I'm not here to argue since I have no clue what list I'm on currently and I presume that would make it worse for me. So with regarding to the message of the 1RR rule (since I know of a 3RR, not a 1RR), will I be blocked momentarily since I did revert two edits (admittedly I could've not reverted those, but that's too late). What should I do in regards to being placed on this list (editing wise)? And will this hurt my account in any shape or form? Again sorry, I will stop editing the Orlando page relative to the attack. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adog104: There is no concern for you as long as you do not revert more than once per 24h on ISIL-related pages (including Orlando shooting). This is relevant for ALL editors (either warned ones or not), but since now you are aware of the sanction, next violation may bring you to administrator's noticeboard, in case some editors consider your behavior aggressive. So take 24h from your last revert (or better 25h) and you can revert with no concern of violation.GreyShark (dibra) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll just steer clear of those articles I guess. It's totally and understandably doable to not 1RR, which is my fault entirely, but to those involved with that committee could they post that warning sooner on the article talk page for future editors that didn't know like myself? Also thank you for the clear up and sorry once again, I meant no harm. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Already posted by me. The only thing perhaps is to add an edit notice at the top of the edit window, but that is a slightly complicated procedure designated for highly important articles such as Syrian Civil War (see this).GreyShark (dibra) 19:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Since its clearly all part of the same series of Nusra-led operations should we maybe merge Aleppo offensive (April 2016) and Aleppo offensive (May 2016), add in yesterday's failed Nusra attack on the two villages and the successful advance from earlier in the month, and rename it something like....2016 Southern Aleppo campaign? EkoGraf (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to merge. Well done.GreyShark (dibra) 13:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 14th century in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Since you had some involvement with the 14th century in the Kingdom of Jerusalem redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: sorry for late reply, but well done for deleting it - totally forgot of my mistake with naming the category.GreyShark (dibra) 13:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello my good shark! I was thinking we could have an article and a template on just the kurdish insurgencies. Because there's unprecedented collaboration between the usually woefully sectarian Kurds (PKK/KDP/PUK/PDKI yada) and it's looking like this is becoming a full out war of national liberation. Sorry about the crystal ball there. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 06:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi my friend user:Monochrome Monitor - i have a to disagree. I haven't seen any sign or source for "unprecedented collaboration". Actually exactly the opposite. I think Kurdish nationalism page and "Middle East conflicts map" template is good enough for all those at this pointGreyShark (dibra) 12:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually IS has really brought them together. The PKK YPG, and Pesh have cooperated on many occasions in the fight against Isis[6][7]. PDKI has offered to help them.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because you are an israeli there is no reason to be ashamed that your country supported a shiite imamate. This is the only reason i can think of why you so devotedly remove such content from the North Yemen Civil War article even though indisputable sources prove this. I have added an extra source for your viewing pleasure. You should stop editing wiki as though it is an israeli project — it is for everyone. 201.17.85.203 (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really an Israeli, but what does it matter to a sock puppet?GreyShark (dibra) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"Not really an Israeli". That doesn't sound too convincing. That's like a Frenchman trying to dispel allegations he's an American by saying "I'm not really an American." You provided no reason why you opposed my edit, including the extra source i added, beyond claiming i'm a sock puppet. Well, i'm not a sock because i readily admit that all those edits made by different IPs were made by me. I'm not hiding anything or any nefarious agenda. Unless you provide a real reason for why you removed my edit, you have no right to just erase info that conflicts with your agenda. 201.17.85.203 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Greyshark, just wanted to bring two things into attention, first being the 2016 Gulshan attack. I don't want to interfere with the 'reactions' section in case it violates my 1RR and because the reaction section is always an iffy area, but could you take a look and fix this edit by chance? It seems very vague and incomplete at best with the editor only adding references to the nations flag with no quotes or a small sentence; for example Australia's "Australia condemned it" sentence. Second, the IP's attack message above me, since he added content here you might want to check out just in case. In addition I have warned the IP about the personal attack. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Adog104: Thanks for the notice. The above user is a sock puppet, so no worries.

I replied at Category talk:Novels set in Israel and Category talk:Zionism in Mandatory Palestine. Should I ping you when replying on obscure talk pages? – Fayenatic London 20:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Greyshark09!

Can I ask u why u changed the population on the page 'Arameans in Israel'?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielOromoy (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean i restored it to the cited number?GreyShark (dibra) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herodian Tetrarchy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamnia. 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) 09:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abu Ghosh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ingush. 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) 09:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that you have added some reference tags to Syria Prima and defined it as "OD1999", however never actually defined the citation/URL inside one of the <ref> tags. Did you happen to have the citation URL/source somewhere? -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 06:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

AnomieBOT has already corrected this.GreyShark (dibra) 07:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transjordan. 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) 09:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't do this. It doesn't lead anywhere other than wasting time and causing needless drama. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are only referring to WP:ERA modifications and not to the whole edit.GreyShark (dibra) 11:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Abhai of Hach

added a link pointing to Byzantine Syria

Abibion

added a link pointing to Byzantine Syria

Abraham of Clermont

added a link pointing to Byzantine Syria

Abraham of Kratia

added a link pointing to Byzantine Syria

Eusebonas

added a link pointing to Byzantine Syria

Macedonius of Syria

added a link pointing to Byzantine Syria

Peter the Hermit of Galatia

added a link pointing to Byzantine Syria

Simeon Stylites

added a link pointing to Byzantine Syria

Thalassius of Syria

added a link pointing to Byzantine Syria

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Insurgency in Balochistan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dor, Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenician. 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) 09:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Refugee crisis page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Palestinian settlement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian settlement until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. nableezy - 16:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC) 16:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• I encourage you to improve the article using the sources others have brought to the AFD discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Now there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_13#Category:Scouting_and_Guiding_in_the_Palestinian_territories if you have an opinion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I know you have been around a bit, but I find your recent editing rather disruptive. Like your removing all Hadawi-refs, or removing the Pal.rem site when it is used as a WP:EL: both are long term consensus, both have been discussed at length (but not for the last few years): I suggest that if you have issues with this, then you should bring it to discussions (say, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration) to change long-term consensus.

If you don´t get a consensus for change, then I will continue to revert you. From the definition of WikiShark: "WikiSharks are editors who mostly remove other users' contributions and rarely make their own. While in some cases this is beneficial, it's usually just disruptive and hindersome in the development of articles." This isn´t really a constructive use of our time, is it? Huldra (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"The Greyshark is a fearsome dwelling of the digital abyss, and it is in fact highly dangerous, when protecting its treasures from aggressive and manipulative creatures. However, don't be fooled - Greyshark is possessing the original features of the WikiGryphon, being kind and helpful to new wiki-editors, actively assisting to positive contributors, and in general protecting wikipedia from Vandals, biting WikiTrolls and WikiZombies and devouring WikiFallen sockmasters and their puppets (who are making too many "waves" on the surface, attracting the abyss predator). Greyshark is sometimes playing violent games with WikiDragons and may become very confused upon encountering a WikiKraken".GreyShark (dibra) 06:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The article ISIL insurgency in Jordan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of the sources used mention "insurgency", 3 incidents are mentioned; one of which was a raid, another an attack and the third completely irrelevant. Hardly notable at all.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I've recently noticed that you've removed poorly sources and highly-disputable claims in Article Yemeni Civil War (2015-Present) . There is Similar situation in Article War in Afghanistan (2015-Present), Could you do something about it there too as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL? In the article Pakistan is added as alleged supporter of the Taliban, Iran added as disputed supporter of the Taliban and Russia added as "alleged rumours of intelligence sharing against ISIS (which were denied)" to the Taliban supporters list, I believe certain persons which added these 3 countries there have personal grudge against these countries and therefore want to portray them as supporters of such groups without any definitive proof whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.63.161.19 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Will look into it.GreyShark (dibra) 07:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are these being redirected to that name? nableezy - 21:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What?GreyShark (dibra) 05:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

eg this and other related categories. nableezy - 16:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the issue of anachronistic categories and how they are treated? For instance Category:1860s in Syria (see [8] per 2013 discussion), category:1921 in Jordan (per 2014 discussion) Category:7th century in Iraq (now discussed at 2016 categories for discussion).GreyShark (dibra) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying Palestinian territories is anachronistic for the 1980s? Because it started to be used in reference to the territories occupied by Israel and captured during the 67 war shortly after that war. nableezy - 17:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

By this logic, are you saying that according to this we should rename all 19th century regional categories to "in Israel"?GreyShark (dibra) 12:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not my logic. Are you saying the term Palestinian territories in the 1980s in anachronistic? A yes or no to that question would be appreciated. nableezy - 17:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to answer that? nableezy - 17:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, prior to 1994, it was "Occupied Arab territories" or more specifically Israeli occupational government from 1967 to 1982 and then the Israeli Civil Administration until early 1994. "The Palestinian territories, Occupied" was officially coined in 1998, but can be applied since early 1994 (when PNA assumed control). But you know this yourself. Why do you ask>?GreyShark (dibra) 19:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, i understand you are unaware of this discussion concerning pushing anachronistic categories? Are you familiar with the category:Years in All-Palestine (Gaza) tree, created by me? I guess not...GreyShark (dibra) 20:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The term Occupied Arab territories was used to refer to all the territories occupied by Israel at the time, including portions of Syria and Egypt. Palestinian territories was commonly used to refer specifically to the territories occupied by Israel in the former British Mandate territory. What exactly are you basing that Palestinian territories is anachronistic? nableezy - 20:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding that territories of former British Mandate territories occupied by Yishuv became Israel, territories of Mandate occupied by Jordan became the West Bank of Jordan, and territories occupied by Egypt and remains of Palestinian Arab militants became All-Palestine Government. There were no "Palestinian territories" at the time, unless you refer so to the short-lived Gazan protectorate (there is already category Category:Years in All-Palestine (Gaza) for that purpose).GreyShark (dibra) 11:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding on what became what is faulty. Besides that, the category names dont even make a whole lot of sense. The All-Palestine government is closest to being ok, but even that fails in that it describes as a place what is an administrative organization. Nobody would say they are from the All-Palestine government, or from the Israeli Civil Administration. Those are not places that things happen in. But again, why is it that you say that a term used by sources at the time is anachronistic? nableezy - 15:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course faulty, imaginary, unreal. But according to Wikipedia rules. Don't mix POV into this.GreyShark (dibra) 20:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, i've so far categorized West Bank categories during Jordanian occupation period as "xx in Jordan", though i'm aware that it is not a good presentation of reality - though Jordan did annex the West Bank, it was barely recognized by any country except UK. I'm thinking of splitting a new tree named Category:Years in the West Bank Governorate (similar to Category:Years in All-Palestine (Gaza) and Category:Years in the Israeli Military Governorate) to address this issue (i'm less in favor of Category:Years in the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank, because it is too long and sounds vague). Wdyt?GreyShark (dibra) 12:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note that if you had followed through with your edit adding the red-linked Category:States and territories disestablished in 661 and actually created the category, you would have seen that it was deprecated per outcome of discussions in February 2013. Please refrain from adding anachronistic categories. Better still, actually create any red-linked categories you add, I've been trying to clear some of the red-linked category database reports and am getting swamped by the number of year categories not being created at the moment - I cleared this one a few weeks ago for instance.Le Deluge (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you - noted.GreyShark (dibra) 05:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Hello, Greyshark09. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Syria. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Syria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, regarding the article of christianity in the Middle east-Gaza strip. I would like to enquire about why my changes have been reverted, since I have provided proper citations and replaced uncited sentences that might be false, I see no reason why my edit is wrong and if you believe it is false please provide me with reasoning why it's false. Thank you for your time.