|
- Archived discussions can be found here.
CS1 error on Paramilitary finances in the Troubles
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Paramilitary finances in the Troubles, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A " missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)§ion=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 23:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on List of common misconceptions
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
List of common misconceptions, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A " missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 01:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted a few of your recent edits, and I see that I'm not the only one to find them problematic. Please review our policies on WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK before adding essay-like glosses on the definition of war crimes to articles like Italian war crimes and German war crimes and/or attempting to enforce your view of what does or doesn't count as a war crime without first seeking consensus. As CaptainEek has pointed out to you, in each of these instances we should be following what reliable sources say. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 17:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Buddy, war crimes are based on existing international law and inteprreation based upon that existing law. I realize I was wrong in Afghanistan ones, but not in other areas where it's pretty clear they were not legally proven war crimes. Also, it's pretty ironic to say you're attemting to enforce your view because my edits in several articles are based on specific IHL and several sources backing up and you don't even bother to read the sources I cited.
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 17:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know what I bothered to read?
Generalrelative (
talk) 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- FYI I've started a discussion related to these edits at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bombing of Guernica. Feel free to state your case there. Cheers,
Generalrelative (
talk) 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oh and leaving aside the problems I'm having with you, I have a hard time believing why in
debate about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you had to remove Saburō Sakai's quote (which had nothing to do with a war crime, but his perspective on things) or that the
Recreation and Amusement Association was somehow forced prostitution when it was clearly legalized, to begin with. In what world do you think legalized prostitution after consent from proper authorities is a war crime?
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 21:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to raise a concern with you calling Pearl Harbor a war crime back in 2014. Your edit on the Japanese war crimes page is the top result on google, and your statement lies somewhere between highly questionable, and outright false. The United States was aiding China in the Sino-Japanese war, and the Pearl Harbor attack was and assault on a military base. Japan committed plenty of war crimes during world war 2, you don't have to make up new ones.
Janarablomb (
talk) 16:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then by all means, you lack knowledge of existing international law. The reason why Pearl Harbor was a war crime because the Hague Convention on Opening of Hostilies said "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Japan did not do that. It's not a make up new one, it was already codified in the Hague Conventions on Opening of Hostilites decades prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Aiding Japan by supplies was not comparable to directly sending troops, which meant that the U.S. was officially still neutral, just like Iran aiding Russia in the current Ukraine war doesn't mean it was a legitimate grounds for NATO to attack it because Iran is still officially neutral by virtue of not sending troops directly.
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 00:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would trust you to interpret that information, given your first sentence in the response is nonsensical.
Janarablomb (
talk) 10:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Feel free to post on Talk:Japanese_war_crimes and discuss your case there then. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 17:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would trust you to interpret that information, given your first sentence in the response is nonsensical.
Janarablomb (
talk) 10:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then by all means, you lack knowledge of existing international law. The reason why Pearl Harbor was a war crime because the Hague Convention on Opening of Hostilies said "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Japan did not do that. It's not a make up new one, it was already codified in the Hague Conventions on Opening of Hostilites decades prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Aiding Japan by supplies was not comparable to directly sending troops, which meant that the U.S. was officially still neutral, just like Iran aiding Russia in the current Ukraine war doesn't mean it was a legitimate grounds for NATO to attack it because Iran is still officially neutral by virtue of not sending troops directly.
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 00:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to raise a concern with you calling Pearl Harbor a war crime back in 2014. Your edit on the Japanese war crimes page is the top result on google, and your statement lies somewhere between highly questionable, and outright false. The United States was aiding China in the Sino-Japanese war, and the Pearl Harbor attack was and assault on a military base. Japan committed plenty of war crimes during world war 2, you don't have to make up new ones.
Janarablomb (
talk) 16:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh and leaving aside the problems I'm having with you, I have a hard time believing why in
debate about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you had to remove Saburō Sakai's quote (which had nothing to do with a war crime, but his perspective on things) or that the
Recreation and Amusement Association was somehow forced prostitution when it was clearly legalized, to begin with. In what world do you think legalized prostitution after consent from proper authorities is a war crime?
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 21:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- FYI I've started a discussion related to these edits at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bombing of Guernica. Feel free to state your case there. Cheers,
Generalrelative (
talk) 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know what I bothered to read?
Generalrelative (
talk) 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
United States war crimes, you may be
blocked from editing. Taken as a whole, your edits are clearly
tendentious. You need to stop.
VQuakr (
talk) 17:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with VQuakr's assessment here about NPOV. Also, this, this, and this are examples of edit warring, which you should know because you've been blocked for it multiple times in the past. I ask you to self-revert before this becomes an actionable behavioral issue once again. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
|
- Archived discussions can be found here.
CS1 error on Paramilitary finances in the Troubles
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Paramilitary finances in the Troubles, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A " missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)§ion=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 23:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on List of common misconceptions
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
List of common misconceptions, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A " missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 01:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted a few of your recent edits, and I see that I'm not the only one to find them problematic. Please review our policies on WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK before adding essay-like glosses on the definition of war crimes to articles like Italian war crimes and German war crimes and/or attempting to enforce your view of what does or doesn't count as a war crime without first seeking consensus. As CaptainEek has pointed out to you, in each of these instances we should be following what reliable sources say. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 17:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Buddy, war crimes are based on existing international law and inteprreation based upon that existing law. I realize I was wrong in Afghanistan ones, but not in other areas where it's pretty clear they were not legally proven war crimes. Also, it's pretty ironic to say you're attemting to enforce your view because my edits in several articles are based on specific IHL and several sources backing up and you don't even bother to read the sources I cited.
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 17:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know what I bothered to read?
Generalrelative (
talk) 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- FYI I've started a discussion related to these edits at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bombing of Guernica. Feel free to state your case there. Cheers,
Generalrelative (
talk) 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oh and leaving aside the problems I'm having with you, I have a hard time believing why in
debate about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you had to remove Saburō Sakai's quote (which had nothing to do with a war crime, but his perspective on things) or that the
Recreation and Amusement Association was somehow forced prostitution when it was clearly legalized, to begin with. In what world do you think legalized prostitution after consent from proper authorities is a war crime?
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 21:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to raise a concern with you calling Pearl Harbor a war crime back in 2014. Your edit on the Japanese war crimes page is the top result on google, and your statement lies somewhere between highly questionable, and outright false. The United States was aiding China in the Sino-Japanese war, and the Pearl Harbor attack was and assault on a military base. Japan committed plenty of war crimes during world war 2, you don't have to make up new ones.
Janarablomb (
talk) 16:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then by all means, you lack knowledge of existing international law. The reason why Pearl Harbor was a war crime because the Hague Convention on Opening of Hostilies said "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Japan did not do that. It's not a make up new one, it was already codified in the Hague Conventions on Opening of Hostilites decades prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Aiding Japan by supplies was not comparable to directly sending troops, which meant that the U.S. was officially still neutral, just like Iran aiding Russia in the current Ukraine war doesn't mean it was a legitimate grounds for NATO to attack it because Iran is still officially neutral by virtue of not sending troops directly.
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 00:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would trust you to interpret that information, given your first sentence in the response is nonsensical.
Janarablomb (
talk) 10:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Feel free to post on Talk:Japanese_war_crimes and discuss your case there then. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 17:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would trust you to interpret that information, given your first sentence in the response is nonsensical.
Janarablomb (
talk) 10:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then by all means, you lack knowledge of existing international law. The reason why Pearl Harbor was a war crime because the Hague Convention on Opening of Hostilies said "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Japan did not do that. It's not a make up new one, it was already codified in the Hague Conventions on Opening of Hostilites decades prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Aiding Japan by supplies was not comparable to directly sending troops, which meant that the U.S. was officially still neutral, just like Iran aiding Russia in the current Ukraine war doesn't mean it was a legitimate grounds for NATO to attack it because Iran is still officially neutral by virtue of not sending troops directly.
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 00:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to raise a concern with you calling Pearl Harbor a war crime back in 2014. Your edit on the Japanese war crimes page is the top result on google, and your statement lies somewhere between highly questionable, and outright false. The United States was aiding China in the Sino-Japanese war, and the Pearl Harbor attack was and assault on a military base. Japan committed plenty of war crimes during world war 2, you don't have to make up new ones.
Janarablomb (
talk) 16:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh and leaving aside the problems I'm having with you, I have a hard time believing why in
debate about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you had to remove Saburō Sakai's quote (which had nothing to do with a war crime, but his perspective on things) or that the
Recreation and Amusement Association was somehow forced prostitution when it was clearly legalized, to begin with. In what world do you think legalized prostitution after consent from proper authorities is a war crime?
XXzoonamiXX (
talk) 21:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- FYI I've started a discussion related to these edits at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bombing of Guernica. Feel free to state your case there. Cheers,
Generalrelative (
talk) 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know what I bothered to read?
Generalrelative (
talk) 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
United States war crimes, you may be
blocked from editing. Taken as a whole, your edits are clearly
tendentious. You need to stop.
VQuakr (
talk) 17:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with VQuakr's assessment here about NPOV. Also, this, this, and this are examples of edit warring, which you should know because you've been blocked for it multiple times in the past. I ask you to self-revert before this becomes an actionable behavioral issue once again. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)