When you reverted LiphradicusEpicus because of the edit war, you also removed content that was merged from the treaty page discussed on Talk:Treaty on the Adoption of the Republic of Crimea to Russia. Do you agree that the closer had consensus to merge the content and that the content had been merged properly? If so, could you restore the content on the accession page and add a {{copied}} hatnote to Talk:Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation, then redirect the talkpage for the treaty? If not, could you explain why and add your voice to the discussion on the treaty page and revert the redirect? Thank you, TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been concerned about the article insofar as to see that merge process is followed. But thank you for instating it anyway, TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral position[edit]

Please let me express Jewish neutrality in this question, it is very important for me. If you know history you will probably understand why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John wilson swe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Can't you just help me editing the text so it becomes less "Anti US", that was not my intention I just copied some text from the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John wilson swe (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Japanese archipelago, although Japan renounced its claim to the island in the 20th century.<ref>{{"The Chautauquan", Volume 42, [http://books.google.com/books?id=DX0AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6#

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is likely.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LibDutch

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XxReflectionxX

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive

IPinvestigates (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to open one concerning Minohaha, (from the page Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état), until I read your comment and found that this was already going on. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minohaha Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia an honest encyclopedia! -- Kndimov (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you. Please can you find a citation to back your POV on dates regarding the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly undoing edits without providing any additional information or references to reliable information. Simply destroying other peoples' work is not serving the community or helping people understand what actually happened. Provide some information proving your point of view without pushing it. Blanket unsupported statements such as "staging military intervention" only misleads the reader.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barbecue in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mustard. 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) 09:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know it appears an edit conflict resulted in you deleting a comment here, which I've now restored. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caliphate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Second city and 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted valuable information about the open letter to Angela Merkel without discussion. Since there is an edit war both at this page and at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity I ask for an outside view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. I guess it's best if we find uninvolved users who decide without previous bad feelings. Galant Khan (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding page move proposal, can you say "withdraw" in Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014)#Move request: Russia during the war in Donbass, so I can close it for you? Consensus in Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Suggested merge says merge. --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hey there, I meant to give this to you a long time ago, for all your hard work on a wide-ranging variety of articles covering current events in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, even in some pretty trying situations here on wikipedia. Kudos :) Yalens (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A belligerent (lat. bellum gerere, "to wage war") is an individual, group, country, or other entity that acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Belligerent comes from Latin, literally meaning "one who wages war".[1] Unlike the use of belligerent as an adjective to mean aggressive, its use as a noun does not necessarily imply that a belligerent country is an aggressor. Sarvagyana guru

1. Engaged in warfare, warring.
2. Eager to go to war, warlike.
3. Of or pertaining to war.
4. (By extension) Aggressively hostile, eager to fight.
5. Acting violently towards others.

Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. realized you were not notified, the discussion and issue is taking a turn for a larger scale issue. Anyways its getting late here and I may not have time to respond to the discussion there. Thanks. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently being discussed here: [1]. DocumentError (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me on any matters related to this whole ISIL business. I've had enough of the subject matter, it has given me a headache, I've taken all the articles off my watch-list, and I'm done with them for good. I thought Ukraine-related articles were bad, but this is a higher plane of absurdity. Regardless, I'm not much interested in the matter anyway, as I don't quite like Near Eastern history. My specialties are in Central Europe and East Asia, so I think I'm going to go back to those topics and stay there. Enjoy traipsing through the mire, praise God. Better you than me, I suppose. Not sure how I even got into those articles in the first place. Regardless, I don't want to see anything more about them pop into my notifications, if you please. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the infobox! You did an excellent job on balancing the box now, even though Nulla Taciti does not like it (expected). In any case, Kurds couldn't be simply put in one column over the other. Reality (as Nulla would say it) is that Aleppo YPG are fighting jointly with the rebels, while Hasakah YPG is fighting jointly with the SAA/NDF. EkoGraf (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am providing everyone who commented in the open page move RfC (and the preceding closed one) a notice of an ANI without respect to their !vote. [2] I very much hope you are able to put aside our editorial differences and faithfully and honestly comment on this highly aberrant and unusual behavior that seems to have nothing to do with our core content dispute but more with editor stability. I know you would not like it if I started unilaterally moving the page or changing key names and, despite our differences and my admittedly uncompromising position on just about everything related to this topic, I hope you are aware I have not and will not do that and that I (even if grudgingly) have followed consensus and work through established processes. The current situation with respect to one editor who is displaying symptoms of high edit instability, however, is not producing a workable edit environment and is likely to further inflame an already less-than-congenial Talk page. DocumentError (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to respectfully ask you to amend your comment "Didn't we just have a conversation a few days ago in which you repeatedly cited the essay WP:CALMDOWN?" by deleting the word "repeatedly." I cited it once. I'd rather not have to get into an OT Diff War in that thread because it's actually about a very serious and troubling situation that should eclipse partisanship. If you want to get some cuts and jabs in on me I pledge I will not object or counter anything you say about me if you could start a separate ANI about it. I promise you 100% free reign, in other words. Could we agree on that? DocumentError (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this: Kudzu1, you need to stop right now. You're following LP's M.O. of wolf-yelling about non-existent personal attacks when people communicate directly and bluntly about disruptive behavior. I edited my remark because it wasn't concise, not because it was a PA. If you have any further issues, bring them up on my Talk page. Don't derail this thread which is already too long. Please feel free to let me know if you need to communicate directly with me in regard to it by posting here or on my Talk page. You and I need to come to an understanding that we won't treat the ANI like a stage where we act out these kind-of passive aggressive scenarios for the audience. And I may be guilty of it as well. If there's something I can do to get you to agree to a Reset it would be appreciated. Obviously our current relationship is untenable. DocumentError (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RfC underway here about what name/abbreviation to use for ISIS/ISIL/IS in the American-led intervention in Syria article. I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in which you may be interested has opened here. - SantiLak (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruce Starr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuck Riley. 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) 10:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Kitzhaber, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington and Dennis Richardson. 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) 09:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping that stuff updated! Valfontis (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks. So glad you got it off the ground. --Esprqii (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudzu1, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Valfontis (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you! -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome!

Valfontis (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are better sources than Saudi owned al-Arabiya to analyze the situation. Sorry to blank the section but foreign factors are not limited to Iran. The Houthis are influenced by Iran but they don't take orders from them.--يوسف حسين (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason behind your recent reverts on Yemen?--يوسف حسين (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made a hash of the intro. There is far too much WP:RECENTISM, the grammar is bad, there is WP:UNDUE emphasis on Saudi relations, etc. If you're going to make major changes like that, you need to obtain consensus on the Talk page first. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok i removed the part about Saudi funding of Wahabism.--يوسف حسين (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that addresses about 1/10th of the issue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derna. 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) 08:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudzu. I have no personal involvement in this, but as you can see, most everybody else seemed to be happy with a clear, easy-to-read, airy layout, with headings and separation of topics.

Stuffy, crowded layouts lead to one thing only: any non-academic reader (and those are 99% of the WP users) give up and go to a different source. I don't think you'd rather have the last word, but no readers for your work :-)

Reverse-editing is too silly, I won't go into that if you insist on reverting what I've done; I'm sure we can agree that the USER and his convenience is the only concern we should have. It's not about me or you. Still, I've been working with book publishers and the press for two decades now and am using what I've learned, I'm not making things up or having an ego trip.

Logic says: Nemtsov is a big topic in today's news, but not for long, not in the English WP for sure. The USER on the other hand, is a constant. One stays away from stuffy texts without breaks and spaces, systematic separation of topics etc. I don't give a damn about how many committees a politician is part of, but I want to know if he's with this or that large block. If I'm doing some research, then I'll take the time and read the rest as well - and will be grateful if things are structured and systematical. As it was, and as you made it again, the material is one big stew, with politics thrown into the same pot with academic work, publications, embarrassing (for the editor) yellow-press comments ("23-year old model") etc.

If it's an encyclopedia, then let it be a good, useful, easy-to-read one. Not a big pile of boring data ("200 metres from the Kremlin" - what if it were 1200, or elsewhere altogether, like with Politkowskaya? Or how young, blond or sexy his companion was?) Putin's people have killed a decent opposition leader and people edit commas and headings, adding gossip. Let's get real.

I hope I didn't get too much carried away. Have a nice weekend.Arminden (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeanne Atkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Way. 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) 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dear Kudzu1, I corrected the mistake that Crimea is a Russian Republic as it has been annexed with force and is is recognized internationally as sovereign Ukrainian territory. So until it is recognized internationally, better stick to the facts Alfiobaldini (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2015

Evidence that there is no Russian invasion of Ukraine: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iNx2DvY3qaw

In the first several seconds, a clip of Viktor Muzhenko, Ukrainian chief of general staff, is shown, where he admits on the Poroshenko-controlled Ukrainian Channel 5 news that there are no regular Russian troops in Ukraine, only individuals volunteers fighting in the militia. Take a look.

—Славянский патриот (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What interpreting needs to be done? He literally states that there are no Russian Army troops in Ukraine. What more do you need? You saw yourself that it is a Ukrainian news channel. So basically, RT was being completely honest and reliable here when they reported it. Facts are facts.

And frankly, if RT is not reliable, Western media sources should be considered unreliable as well, as all they do parrot what the U.S. government is saying even though much of it has no actual evidence backing it. I think both of us are quite aware that Western channels like, say. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc, will just be biased against Russia and highly in favor of the U.S. government's policy, regardless of what it may be. So if we really want neutrality, we would take both sides and let the reader form their own conclusion based on what they read, rather than removing almost everything that's affiliated with the Russian side and giving a strictly pro-Western point of view. —Славянский патриот (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then why would the Russian government report on it? The Russian defense ministry made a statement about Muzhenko's comments, and do you think they would be making a statement based a YT video? Also, where else would you want the clip posted? What, do you think someone used editing to make it deliberately? It is quite reliable, especially when you have a government actually responding to the event. —Славянский патриот (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you compare Western media and put it on a pedestal above RT is quite laughable when they do indeed do nothing but parrot the State Department's line. I meant give me one example when they criticized the US government's actions in Ukraine in terms of not thinking of Russia's interests, and frankly the idea that Western media is independent is laughable given the fact that most of it is owned by a few individuals that are connected to the U.S. government. —Славянский патриот (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have tried to do, but to no avail. And that doesn't explain your bias against Russia. So what if Russian troops abroad? The US has troops in more than a hundred countries and started many aggressive and useless wars, yet you seem to take them seriously. I assume you refer to Crimea, Armenia, and Belarus, since there are no Russian troops posted anywhere else. Now if you want to talk about violations of international law, then look at the United States' actions over the past two decades. And frankly I don't see what you mean by "reliable sources" because if you refer to the Western "media" (US govt's propaganda) by that (might as well just say it) then I guess we have differing opinions on what would be reliable. —Славянский патриот (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is my view fringe? I have talked to many Americans, I have spent time living in the US and am currently here, and the majority of them agree with this view, so it's clearly not "fringe". I assume you are one of those people who believes that if there is anything that contradicts the US government's view, no matter how logical it is, then it must be not true. I mean the funniest thing is how you said the Western media is "mostly independent". Which begs the question, why is this policy of only recognizing US government controlled media even in place? So far facts on the ground and the history of the US government's regime change policy seems to point that blindly trusting anything they say is foolish. They haven't even provided any reliable evidence of there being Russian troops in Ukraine, and yet people take them seriously. —Славянский патриот (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for at least giving some attention to the matter, unlike most others, I guess. Good luck with your blind trust of the US government by the way, I suggest you to open your eyes a bit, and goodbye. —Славянский патриот (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS Claimed the plane was shot down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.73.72.189 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am happy to meet an experienced user who is active here since 2005. I worked on the several articles which were about the wars in the middle east such as Lebanon war 2006. I hope our cooperation lead to good articles in this case.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i just see your article about the Arabian military intervention against the Houthis but where is the article about the 2015 southern offensive ? I can not find it anywhere Rogal Dorm (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a redirection problem Rogal Dorm (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the news events substitute the Yemen's related article in the main page. As there is ongoing crisis, I suggest to add this case in "Ongoing" section beside Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is posted.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Houthis 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 get 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. --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kudzu1. You have new messages at Talk:Houthis#Iranian arms.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you got into a bit of an edit war with the user StrivingSoul. I've been looking at his contributions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Strivingsoul), and they appear to be highly apologetic towards shia militant groups and the Islamic Republic of Iran. I've been bothered by his many compromising edits, which are often disguised under deceptive summaries (ie, describing this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houthis&oldid=654804309 as "minor wording, formatting". In light of this abuse of wikipedia as a platform for propaganda and hate speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2015_Sana%27a_mosque_bombings), I'm strongly considering pursuing general sanctions. Do you mind any involvement in this?

Happy Holidays,

MonoMonitor :) --Monochrome_Monitor 21:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I would call reverting an obviously unconstructive edit a couple of times an "edit war", but all the same -- I have noticed, and pointed out, some of those same behavioral issues. If you want to pursue sanctions, that's your prerogative, although I will say I have dealt with worse both on Middle East content and other topics. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll wait it out. We'll see if he tones down the POV-pushing, especially now that Iran is directly involved. (http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/04/08/us-speeding-weapons-deliveries-to-saudi-led-yemen-coalition) --Monochrome_Monitor 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's back. I reverted his recent edits including deleting sourced info charging Houthis with using child soldiers, but I feel another edit war coming. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Monochrome Monitor: Unfortunately, I have reported the editor for edit-warring. While he hasn't violated WP:3RR, this pattern of behavior has become disruptive. If you want to open an AN/I report, that may be the best place to address the anti-Semitism issue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert his edits. (My second revert). If he reverts them he'll have violated 3RR. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC) :)[reply]

It would maybe be good to create an article on the ongoing battle of Ad Dali' in Yemen as well. EkoGraf (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Battle of Ad Dali'. EkoGraf (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think and agree we need an overall article titled something like Yemeni Civil War (2015) (start date the attack on Aden airport March 19). Just not sure if the southern offensive article should be separate from it or we just rename the offensive article to Yemeni Civil War (2015). However, considering how much the news has talked about the Houthi advance into the south I think it should remain separate. Feel free to create an overall article for the war and I will help you expand it. If editors feel the name is still not appropriate enough we will discuss it with them in the future. EkoGraf (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have thought about this and here is what I suggest. Rename the Southern Yemen offensive article to Yemeni Civil War (2015) or 2015 Yemen conflict, expand it with events from before the southern advance (since March 19) and I will create two more articles like this one here Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) to cover the clashes in the two other provinces that the fighting is also focused on. I will link you the other two articles as well when I'm finished. EkoGraf (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, one more done Shabwah campaign (March–April 2015). I have only Lahij to do and I'm finished. EkoGraf (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the last one Lahij insurgency. You should look to cut down now the main article and summarize only the main points while linking to all of the other campaign/battle articles. EkoGraf (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is looking good. Now, to see how fast the shifting sands of Yemen blow all of this up and force us to reconfigure the articles again... -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yemeni Civil War (2015), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Missile frigate. 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) 09:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thought the same thing. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Yemeni Civil War (2015) 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) 00:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have sourced various articles in the talk page addressed at mno regarding the Chemical weapon use and suffocation. I also added more sources next to the original you deleted. I am not sure if you speak Arabic, but even if you don't, I am sure this video will show plenty proof.ArabianWonders (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Rastegarfar. Why you undid my note whithout any logical reason? So please tell me what was it . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastegarfar.mo (talk • contribs) 05:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. Including a section dedicated to one foreign leader's statements clearly fails due weight and neutrality standards for Wikipedia, and WP:PRIMARY encourages us to seek out reliable secondary sources rather than, say, a dictator's official website. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

: I read the rules before. I am working on different kinds of topic on Wikipedia. I am sure that my notes was o and there was no problem and nothing against the rules. So please let every body say their reason with references to share the truth all over the world. So try to be logical. OK?

Regards, Rastegarfar.mo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastegarfar.mo (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you read the rules, but you need to follow them. There is an article for International reactions to the 2015 military intervention in Yemen. Khamenei's statements do not need a standalone section on Yemeni Civil War (2015). Certainly the stuff about "Zionism" is out of place. Edits must have consensus in order to be accepted on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rastegarfar.mo: I see that you are continuing to edit-war, despite my warning. I encourage you to self-revert and avoid a potential block for edit-warring behavior. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude. Sorry for the sudden incursion in your talk page. First and foremost, I saw all contributions you made for the topics in Yemen and I have to thank you for manage to create separate articles for every respective Houthi battlefield campaign recently. I was trying to make new pages but I was hesitated due to some Wiki policy.

Anyhow, if you have time, do you not mind help create an article about the Houthi battle campaign in `Amran that took place last year April 2014-July 2014? This offer entirely depends on you. I just find this important article missing but I think someone needs to create it to tell how this battle (which Houthis later gains victory) leads to the fall of Islah party stronghold and precedes the invasion in Sana'a on Sept 2014. I will be assisting with the edits if you need it. All your contributions are highly appreciated. Regards. Myronbeg (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem, and thanks for your kind words. I've been meaning to make an Amran campaign page, but I don't know if I will get around to it this week, as it looks like a bit of an undertaking. I definitely agree that it is needed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, dude. Link me your new article page if you have made one. Thanks again. Myronbeg (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your edit under the "Other Effects" in regards to the Al-Saud power shift and I placed an update under opposition in Saudi Arabia. Your update is much better so remove mine, but do you think it should be under other effects? I feel like it will be better under Opposition. Since it is a direct result of his opposition. ArabianWonders (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have said before I don't like imposing the support/oppose binary (or support/oppose/neutral trinary) on reaction pages and sections, because I feel it is a form of WP:OR that can provoke attempts at artificial "balancing". In this case, that holds true, and I'd additionally note that an International reactions to the 2015 military intervention in Yemen page does exist, as well as that so far, Muqrin's opposition to the campaign is little more than gossip and speculation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudzu1, I have made major expansions to the content on 2015 Burundian protests. I hope this should bring the article up to the quality that you think is needed for an article on the news page. I would certainly appreciate your collaboration and/or feedback.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion/arguments at this discussion Talk:Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present)#Misleading figures of casualties in the infobox would be appreciated. There are two editors advocating inserting civilian casualty figures for the whole war in the Saudi campaign infobox, which in my opinion is misleading for the readers because than they, for example, will think 551 civilians died as a result of the Saudi campaign when in reality they were killed in multiple battles/events of the overall war, some of which had no Saudi involvement at all. They also do not acknowledge there is an overall war. EkoGraf (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Funny enough, I added the latest UN figure this morning and was almost immediately reverted by the same editor who was demanding the number be changed in the first place.

I have noticed certain editors have focused their sole attention on the intervention page, appearing to ignore the existence of the civil war page. I wonder why that is? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, like I said, it seems they do not acknowledge there was any war before the Saudis got involved. EkoGraf (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki is making another push at the talk page to include all civilian casualties from the conflict in the infobox of the Saudi-led intervention article. I think I tried to explain to him in a dozen ways the intervention itself is just one part/operation of the conflict/war and he still does not accept it. Please you try making one last-ditch explanation to him at the talk page (section Misleading figures of casualties in the infobox) because I'm starting to think I'm speaking Spanish and he doesn't understand me. EkoGraf (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, he is now just rambling and accusing me of doing a cover up. In any case seems he is going to drop the issue but I'm getting a feeling he is one of those that wants to have his word the last in the argument. So if he makes another message to my last reply I'll just stay quiet. EkoGraf (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been getting a pretty strong WP:NOTHERE vibe from him throughout this entire discussion, for what it's worth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me too. EkoGraf (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, well done. Jusdafax 07:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Medeis reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: ). Thanks. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kudzu1. I started a new discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Since you tagged this source as "unreliable", for this statement "The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons were politically motivated and that it would go against elementary logic", I thought you may like to know. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ghouta chemical attack". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 June 2015.

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Ghouta chemical attack, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

Twice, you bastard, I went to add a ref and saw you had already added exactly the same one I had found seconds before! :)

Here's the original lead: James Roy Horner' (August 14, 1953 – June 22, 2015^[1]) was an American composer, conductor and orchestrator of film music. <nowicki>'</nowicki>. Maybe you can fix or reference this or delete it, as you seem far more schooled on music than I.

Great work, am putting you as updater on ITN nom.

Not entirely sure why, but I've always found it a bit humorous when an article is whipped into shape after its subject dies. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ATinySliver: Gotta make sure people who deserve front-page status can actually get it after they die. But yeah, it makes you wonder just how many biographical articles on Wikipedia totally fail WP:BLP. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, that ... ;) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Spencer^T♦C 20:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]