User talk:AssadistDEFECTOR

A tag has been placed on Chemical weapon conjecture in the aftermath of the 2017 Shayrat missile strike requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you create an inappropriate page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Chemical weapon conjecture in the aftermath of the 2017 Shayrat missile strike requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 209.249.5.140 (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are skating on very thin ice here. This entire area is covered by general sanctions and I will not hesitate to topic ban you if you continue disruptively editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice and am sorry for skating too far. Thank you for not blocking me on this occasion, which I presume you could have done. I was trying to be constructive but hadn't read the POV Fork guidelines. I have now and understand them better, have considered your wise judgement accordingly and will not repeat such behavior. Once again, thank you for your considerations. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So within a day of this reply, you decided to do some coatracking with yet another article creation here? VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the two references you removed are coatracking. They both directly discuss the bomb, which is the topic of KhAB-250. Would you be so kind to explain more? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All but a single sentence of the article was related to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, including a lengthy (~50% of the article) bit sourced from RT.com promoting the Russian viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to find more reliable sources about this bomb to use and expand in an encyclopedic manner it as I have at KAB-250. This is problematic as we are dealing with a 60s relic that hasn't been covered by anyone in a long time. I expect you are aware 99% of the coverage of this bomb relates to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack at the moment so I thought it deserved an article after practicing on a modern weapon that is currently in use. I would appreciate if you could replace the sentences with due weight as you see fit. I would like to include the mention of how the bomb explodes in mid-air and leaves no crater as this is an important encyclopedic fact. I would rather the article sticks to facts not POV. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RECENTISM regarding "at the moment". The single sentence I left at the article now certainly is neutral. I don't see any reason to rush to add RT's claims anywhere, much less a new article about a Soviet-era bomb. VQuakr (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any guidelines under recent-ism that would cover an old bomb that everyone has suddenly started talking about. How does neutrality cover the description of physical objects? This is not a recent event, even if one source is claiming it might have been used recently, I am not trying to push any POV about that or the bomb. The bomb itself doesn't take sides. Which part do you think is not neutral? Sorry to keep asking but I would be grateful if you could explain yourself better how this applies? I have found another source to at least describe how much these things weighed to show I am hoping to be constructive and make a decent article about this. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that despite it being RT who is reporting on a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman and Major General in the Russian Army. I would think qualified as such, Igor is an ideal reliable source to discuss the subject and his description and comments about the bomb should be re-added. They don't even need to mention Khan Skaykhoun. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about the bomb, made in the last month, by Russia, are still POV - they are making dubious claims as a result of its alleged connection to the recent attack. Even RT notes that despite the recent Russian military bomb, this was a weapon designed to deliver sarin and similar compounds (ie cyclosarin). VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is not making "claims", they are facts - statements. What do you consider "claims" or facts do you consider dubious? The text no longer mentions the recent attack so I am not sure why this is a factor? RT does not note that the weapon was designed to deliver sarin. All it says "He did not explain the inscription on the museum mock-up, which states “sarin." Have you every been to an aircraft or war museum? I have and seen lots of these "mock-ups" of bombs of all types. They're non-functional museum pieces, just dummies, "fabrications" if you will, and it isn't a military officer's job to comment on museum curation and why they wrote "sarin" on a mock-up. It's not a real bomb. It's a model. These bombs don't exist anymore. You may be taking unreliable information from the HRW source which I think you rightly removed and rephrased the article with hindsight. Unless you have any other reasonable suggestions or problems, I would be grateful if you would be so kind to replace Igor's facts please. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are claims. A fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true. Russia has a (very) vested interest in and history of distributing false and/or confusing information about current events related to Syria; RT is not a reliable source in this context. VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack there was a request for comments which resulted in the claim not being covered in the main article. It is not appropriate to bypass the RFC by creating a separate article about this claim (and with a rather misleading title; see WP:COATRACK). As I have said in my proposal for deletion, the claim could be covered by a single sentence in the article Theodore Postol instead. (I see that the article has been deleted by User:NeilN under arbitration/general sanctions enforcement.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KAB-250, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State. 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) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a 1RR violation on a page related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. Please be more careful in the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about bludgeoning the process by creating many talk page discussions in a short period of time, especially when they're on similar topics. This is in response to the many discussions you've recently started on the same or similar topics at Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Take this as a strong encouragement to impose a rate limit on yourself, but also be aware that continued bludgeoning is likely to result in general sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khan Shaykhun 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.
This was a violation of the editing restriction on place for the page, as that addition has already been contested. VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fake warning and a dishonest comment. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating the "consensus required" restriction on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=I did not violate the "consensus required" restriction as I had consensus to re-add an impeccable, Pulitzer prize winning journalist's source. Please see talk.}}

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AssadistDEFECTOR,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Free Syrian Police for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Largoplazo (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the source. It is not an attack page. It is a breaking story. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself. Largoplazo (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story is about allegations, which, even if true, aren't what the company would be described as in a lead section, as though that were its corporate purpose. Largoplazo (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, those allegations are the primary reason for it's notoriety. The company wouldn't be notable otherwise so the lead should obviously lead with why it's notable. Otherwise you'd delete it for non-notability, catch 22? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I gather from online sources that the company has received plenty of coverage for a variety of reasons over the years. Largoplazo (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i'll try to recreate the page with some of that stuff you want to seem to want to cover their horrific actions up with. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Free Syrian Police has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Kleuske (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on political topics are less likely to be deleted if they are written in a NPOV manner. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unprotecting the page. I will proceed with caution as advised. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have repeatedly shown you are unable to contribute neutrally in this area you are now subject to the following sanction for three months:

Topic banned from making any edits about the Syrian Civil War and/or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. This includes all talk pages.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community authorised general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This sanction has been recorded in the log. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction on the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page) and you may ask for clarification of the scope of this ban. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "barnstar" you left for NeilN was obnoxious and probably a violation of your topic ban. Stop this behavior now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly like to remind you that each count of supporting terrorism can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in a federal court. You have been warned. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing same behavior that led to the topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've also just revoked your TPA for trolling. You may appeal this block via WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]