User talk:Badon

Hello Badon, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. jonkerz♠ 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to reply at a talk page to you, but I wanted to say this first: I would be happy to help you learn how to contribute here. Please contact me at my talk page with any questions. I think my talk page comment may disappoint you, as you are a new editor and the paragraph in question at Death of Wang Yue is one of your most significant contributions thus far. Jesanj (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! I'm actually not new to Wikipedia, I just don't make edits very often. I have responded to your concerns on the talk page you mentioned. Badon (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, Death of Cristina and Violetta Djeordsevic, is nominated for deletion. See the discussion here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:04 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Giant panda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese Panda coins (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) 10:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badon,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

So their opinion is welcome as long as it is support. Great. Prodego ^talk 05:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with having them, but they MUST be equally applied throughout the page. We can't have instructions on one section and not on others. Please don't revert me again. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to add the instructions for Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action, or should I? Do you think they should go in each section, or at the top of the page? Badon (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They should go at the top of the page, if they must be there. There are sufficient examples to follow, don't you think? This type of discussion is immensely preferable to blind reverts, especially when you could be accused of starting an edit war... Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - and they can't lean toward one side or the other. So simply "support" is insufficient. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the top of the page is the best place to put the instructions. Since there is no explanation of the examples, there is nothing sufficient about it. Especially the automatically generated signatures. I added the instructions when I saw people trying to type out their signature. MediaWiki markup is one of the biggest barriers to participation, so a set of basic 1-liner instructions is not too much to grant to the newbies. Go ahead and move the instructions to the top of the page, so everyone knows how to add their vote. The people most affected by blackouts are readers who are completely clueless about editing, so engaging them is important. Badon (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions have been removed again, but not moved to the beginning of the page. Did you want me to do it, or are you already working on it? Badon (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hi. When you recently edited Invention of radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna (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) 10:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

PC-BSD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Deduplication and Geli

ZFS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Geli

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piedfort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis VII (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) 12:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hero of the Russian Federation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity (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) 08:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a guess and say Yu-Gi-Oh! is a hobby of yours? If you leave an open-ended question on my Talk Page, I won't reply immediately, as I don't check often. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not familiar with it. Badon (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Feed conversion ratio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold-blooded (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) 08:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For medical content we typically follow WP:MEDRS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted your addition to the lede at Ghouta chemical attack. I explained why in the edit summary; to quote: 1. Lead summarizes body; this should be in the body. 2. Source used makes clear that this was an attack from soil held by the Syrian gvt; content it supports needs to as well. 3. Currently under mediation; discuss first please. Please let me know if you have any questions. VQuakr (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The information is in the body. You just reverted too aggressively, and you didn't see it.
2. That doesn't matter. The location of a crime implies nothing about who the criminal is.
3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the mediation I found did not appear to be about the information I cited.

Badon (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the information that was removed (everything I added was removed). Note that I added some depth to the sections so they would be sorted nicer here Badon (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC):[reply]

The Syrian government and opposition blamed each other for the attack.^[1] Many governments said the attack was carried out by forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,^[2][3] a conclusion echoed by the Arab League and the European Union.^[4][5] The Russian government called the attack a false flag operation by the opposition to draw foreign powers into the civil war on the rebels' side.^[6] Åke Sellström, the leader of the UN Mission, characterized government explanations of rebel chemical weapons acquisition as unconvincing, resting in part upon "poor theories."^[7] Independent observers question the motives behind the attack. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley asked the UN's chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta, Scott Cairns, "Why would anyone launch the largest chemical weapons attack in decades while chemical weapons inspectors are in town?". He responded, "I ask myself that a lot. I don't know."^[8]

Both the opposition and the Syrian government said a chemical attack was carried out in the suburbs around Damascus on 21 August 2013. Anti-government activists said the Syrian government was to blame for the attack, while the Syrian government said foreign fighters and their international backers were to blame.^[9][10]

On the day of the attack, George Sabra the head of the Syrian National Council said 1,300 people had been killed as shells loaded with poisonous gas rained down on the capital's eastern suburbs of Douma, Jobar, Zamalka, Arbeen and Ein Tarma.^[11] A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army's Supreme Military Council, Qassim Saadeddine, said "People are growing desperate as they watch another round of political statements and U.N. meetings without any hope of action."^[12] Ahmad Jarba, who was the president of the Syrian National Coalition at the time of the attack, called on the U.N. investigators to travel to “the site of the massacre” and for an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting on the subject.^[13] The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the attack was committed by the Syrian regime and called on Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, "to apply all pressure within his powers to pressure the Syrian regime."^[14][15]

The next day, a spokesman for the Syrian National Coalition, Khaled al-Saleh, said at least six doctors died after treating victims, and that they didn't yet have the number of dead first responders.^[16]

Syria's Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, Qadri Jamil, said foreign fighters and their international backers were to blame for the attack.^[10] Syrian state television, SANA, said the accusations were fabricated to distract a team of UN chemical weapons experts which had arrived three days before the attacks.^[17] The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons would go against elementary logic and that "accusations of this kind are entirely political."^[18][19]

Independent observers question the motives behind the attack. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley asked the UN's chemical weapons inspector in Ghouta, Scott Cairns, "Why would anyone launch the largest chemical weapons attack in decades while chemical weapons inspectors are in town?". He responded, "I ask myself that a lot. I don't know." Cairns described the UN team's hasty entry into Ghouta to document the attack as quickly as possible. The attackers were still present in the area when they arrived, and although their vehicles were briefly fired upon, no one was injured, and their entry into Ghouta was almost entirely unopposed. Cairns stated the gunmen could have killed them to stop the inspection, but instead allowed them to proceed, and he believes the attackers fired on the UN vehicles only to "send us a message". CBS News claims that, "Never before had investigators arrived at a chemical crime scene so soon."^[20]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghouta chemical attack. 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.
In case you were not aware, the page is under a 1RR restriction. VQuakr (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made any reverts. 2 completely different edits hardly counts as an edit war, especially when they're the only edits I've ever made to the article, and they're unrelated to anyone else's edits (I wasn't altering or removing anyone else's edits). As a matter of fact, it appears to me you are part of VERY aggressive and coordinated attempts to suppress information on this article during the last few years. Are you on the USA government's payroll? It's incredibly conspicuous that the article has been in mediation for almost 3 years, and any information that contradicts the USA's military objectives is the only kind of information that is not represented in the article. Badon (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord. There obviously will be no reasoning with this one. VQuakr (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, don't listen to me, I'm crazy! Nothing I say has any merit whatsoever! Don't think about it for even a moment, just listen: Don't try to verify anything yourself. If you do, you're crazy too! Badon (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I should verify first. Am I on the US Govt payroll? Huh, no. There, I checked. An editor can make posts like these, or they can be taken seriously. The two are mutually exclusive. VQuakr (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is in the pudding [1]. - Badon (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...of your status as a joke? VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a serious accusation here, claiming that I have questioned your mental health. Please provide diffs showing evidence or retract this claim. More generally, your behavior on the article talk page is disruptive and preventing any actual discussion; please elevate the level of your communication. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]