Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:13, 11 April 2017

2016 Würzburg train attack ‎

Hi Xavier, I am currently unable to find any other instances where the attacker is said to have been living in a refugee camp, or having lived with a German foster family for two weeks apart from on the Daily Mail and other tabloid newsletters. Am I searching the wrong way? Egroegw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I just added a full citation from NBC News. XavierItzm (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for my being too quick to assume the verisimilitude of the Daily Mail source. Egroeg5 (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Visa restrictions etc

Hi Xavier, the Ebola responses page is not intended to track things like visa restrictions, which are intended to protect the internal population of the country which imposes them. I think there must be hundreds of these in different countries by now.

It is intended to keep track of the manpower, medical expertise, and physical resources which are being directed into Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea in order to prevent the spread of the epidemic and to minimize the impact of the disease in West Africa. Robertpedley (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robert, yes, thanks, I see you fixed it, appreciated!XavierItzm (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo

Knowing that WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages, could you please explain to us why you keep publishing a partial statement of a 14 year old without mentioning the opposing views published in the same article ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, many thanks for reaching out. The subtopic is "Muslim reactions", and the literal texts are direct quotes from the Newspaper of Record of France (according to Misplaced Pages). It is true that the article from the Newspaper of Record also contains other material; feel free to add as appropriate to other sections of the Charlie Hebdo massacre as appropriate.
Now, with regard to the article currently cited:
1. It is also cited on the French Misplaced Pages page, I.e., the French are Ok with it
2. It is from a blue-chip, gold-standard RS
3. It is consistent with material from other top-RS from France (also cited)
4. You keep deleting the whole thing. Please refrain from so doing. Thank you. 03:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV has nothing to do with the quality of the source and there's no mention of it in the French Misplaced Pages page. In essence, you still haven't answered my question. MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, me, but where do you get that the French wikipedia does not reference the Le Monde article?.
Currently it is citation N. 214:
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/10/a-saint-denis-collegiens-et-lyceens-ne-sont-pas-tous-charlie_4553048_3224.html
https://fr.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Attentat_contre_Charlie_Hebdo&oldid=110845330
Kindly stop denying the facts. XavierItzm (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The partial statement of the 14 year old that you translated from French (Je n'ai aucune pitié pour lui) does not appear anywhere in the French wikipedia page. Once again, WP:NPOV has nothing to do with the quality of the source. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The text cited reflects accurately the issues raised by Le Monde and the article is cited by the French Misplaced Pages. Kindly stop denying this fact.
Besides, who's stopping you from adding anything you feel appropriate? Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Apart from energy and time, nothing is stopping me from adding what I think is appropriate or correcting the words that you falsely attributed to a kid. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that does sound like bad faith on your part. Here is what the kid said, according to Le Point, the second argest French magazine:
"Pourquoi ils continuent, madame, alors qu'on les avait déjà menacés ?"
The direct, grammatically correct translation is chilling. True, maybe the student's grammar is poor. That happens, especially in the banlieues. I'll give you that.

Brian Williams - Berlin Wall: last edit could use a look --

Hi, Xavier -- You might want to have another look at your last edit on the "Brian Williams -- Berlin Wall" section. It doesn't seem to be reading properly (or maybe I'm not understanding what's meant --) As follows: CBS wrote: "“I was at the Brandenburg Gate . . . " CBS was at the Brandenburg Gate?? And I may be missing something else, but the whole CBS addition seems mostly to restate the sentence above it. (You may have a reason for having added it I'm not getting --) Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like there was a typo! Thank you very much for fixing it! XavierItzm (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering" on the Brian Williams' talk page

Hi, XavierItzm -- Have you read the guideline Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering (a.k.a. WP:WL)? There's a lot of it going on over at the Talk:Brian Williams page. Among other actions characteristic of WP:WL is "isinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." I have yet to allude to Wikilawyering to defend attacks on my positions on Brian Williams' Talk, but I thought you might be interested in the article. Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel says what it says

Please can you remove Israel from the designations table at ISIL as per discussion here and earlier discussion here. There is a difference between saying that a group is law breaking and saying it is terrorist. There was also no reference given for Iraq. GregKaye 20:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, you raise awesome points! I'll edit the article. XavierItzm (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Brian Williams

Looks like not only do some not want it mentioned that the show's name has been changed but some don't want it mentioned that Williams wanted to replace Leno and Letterman. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm, there's a new, long article in Vanity Fair about Brian Williams, including liberal use of the "L-word." I thought you might be interested. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/04/nbc-news-brian-williams-scandal-comcast Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Bruiserid, I'll have a look! XavierItzm (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Shooting of Michael Brown, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Please be aware of WP:BRD you edited boldly (B) and were reverted (R), you need to take it to the talk page to discuss(D) the inclusion of the information you inserted, continuing to include this information will put you at risk of breeching WP:3RR which may lead to a block. Amortias (T)(C) 21:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. Please note WP:BRD reads "Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one" as a recommendation to the reverter. It is I who first made an edit based on what the RS indicates, and got reverted without the other editor following procedure, namely opening up on the TP. It seems to me that I am the victim here. Thanks for your time and attention. XavierItzm (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I should add that from the beginning all my edits had a full rationale. The other guy didn't even bother to write any. She or he just went ahead and reverted without so much as a "hello". Nice. XavierItzm (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Amortias (T)(C) 21:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Christina, Queen of Sweden

Thank you for trying to help and for putting one of my objections very cearly on the talk page in just one short text! Please also be aware that the claim that she had "affairs" with women is unsourced, as I see it. There is a reference to some pages that we do not have access to, and I don't think we'll find anything to substantiate that on those pages. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Selective reference?

I noticed your recent edit of the newly started article Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in which you added reference to an article titled: "Islamic State: What you need to know". Following other "Islamic State" titled references that you have presented I was wondering how you came across this title.

When I did a search on (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND "need to know" I found that only a tiny proportion of content contained "Islamic State" in the title. You should also be aware that previous RfC discussions have agreed presentation as ISIL / Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. If you are interested I am sure that an editor such as Legacypac can find the exact reference for you.

GregKaye 15:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See also search results on:

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND "Sunni Militants"
• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND "Radical Islamist"

GregKaye 15:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If one stays away from US-centric media (which often follow the US-government-approved designation of "ISIL"), the most frequent name found is "Islamic State". So for example:
* The Telegraph: Islamic State: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/
* The London Evening Standard: Islamic State: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/assyrian-christians-flee-islamic-state-militants-in-northern-iraq-9945294.html
* BBC: Islamic State: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28116033
Et cetera. Having said that, there are some independent US media that routinely use "Islamic State", such as the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, although sometimes they will still show older, superseded names for the terrorists. XavierItzm (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I should add that Cole Bunzel of the Brookings Institutions strictly refers to "Islamic State" as "Islamic State," and furthermore adds:
“The Islamic State” refers here to the group once known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI, October 2006–April 2013), the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS, April 2013–June 2014), and the Islamic State (IS, June 2014–present). This usage conforms to the group’s own shorthand for itself—as “the Islamic State” (al-Dawla al-Islamiyya), or merely “the State” (al-Dawla)—going back to 2006." Is the Brookings Institution incorrect? XavierItzm (talk)

XavierItzm Why do you mention US centric? As I am sure that you realise governments across the world have made consistent use of ISIS and ISIL. Please recognise the POV also in relation to media presentation. I still want to raise the query as to how you chose your references. Within Arabic and Persian centric media the main reference is Daesh. It is the group presentation as "Islamic State" that has been widely rejected by the people most involved and this should be respected fairly. Also even if you do pick and choose your references according to your POV, please add the references with more than bare URLs. Please review and replace the bare URL citations that you have given. Instructions on this are found, in amongst other places, at the top of the Talk:ISIL page. GregKaye 06:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Rachel Dolezal 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.
I notice you've added the same content five times. -- haminoon (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yay. The other warring editor does not get any sort of warning, nor is it explained why the other editor used a different pretense each time to delete the well sourced material. There's WP for you. XavierItzm (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Trans-racial

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Trans-racial. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Passing (racial identity). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Passing (racial identity) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. -- haminoon (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote marks

You replied to my comment on the article talk page but seem to have ignored the bit about quote marks. Quote marks are for direct quotations only. Putting paraphrased statements in quotemarks is a WP:BLP violations. I've had to fix up your edits several times now. -- haminoon (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous comment. I have never put inside quotations anything that was not literally quoted from a specific source, and I challenge you to cite any counterexamples. XavierItzm (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Umpqua Community College shooting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I utterly disagree with User talk:Mandruss's characterisation of the events. As you can see, others were making the exact same point that the edits up to that point were egregiously biased. I invite anyone else to look into this and it will be found Mandruss is simply trying to undermine my edits. XavierItzm (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if 100 other editors also failed to assume good faith. It's still a violation of WP:AGF. You are also bordering on violation of WP:NPA, a Misplaced Pages policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP asks that users do not use sarcasm nor make aspersions on others, such as calling them "corrupt imbeciles." Here is what User:Mandruss wrote today at 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC):
"Therefore Misplaced Pages is a community of corrupt imbeciles. Thank you for that unique insight."
Let anyone who reads this page come to his own conclusions regarding User:Mandruss and his activities here on my user talk page. XavierItzm (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a total distortion of what was said, I don't think you're going to fool anyone but yourself. Continue this kind of behavior and we'll see where it gets you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to go to the record and read the entirety of User:Mandruss post of today at 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC), and verify that the text cited above within quotations is 100% accurate. Please evaluate User:Mandruss's actions accordingly. 10:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg

Would you add back the image on my behalf. Here is the removed code of the image. George Ho (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. You're at least the third person he's tried. I'll revert any such edit, per this. I've already advised/suggested that he just include a link to the image in the RfC, and apparently he doesn't like that idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'll include it, but I don't like modifying someone else's OP. --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I failed to notice until now that you already had a link at the start of the second paragraph. My mistake, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello George Ho, can you believe how incredibly arrogant on the part of the other person it is to come to my page and preemptively and without any signal from my part write on this page that he would delete this action that in no way I had singled I might or might not do? Disgusting, I say. XavierItzm (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

.... If you reinsert the photo, someone else will remove the image. However, doing it over and over would get both of you blocked per WP:3RR. --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy on living persons at Talk:Cecil (lion)

I've posted about an issue here in which you are involved. Samsara 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Your claims of vandalism

Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at November 2015 Paris attacks, are not considered vandalism under Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. LjL (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, your repeated putting of words into the voice of the WSJ that the WSJ never used is very questionable. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be, but it's not vandalism. Please watch your words before you get accused of personal attacks. Anyway, we don't quote sources, we paraphrase them in the way that best suits our articles. "Islamic State" and "ISIL" are the same thing, and it doesn't' matter which exact term the source used. LjL (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User LjL wrote: ""Islamic State" and "ISIL" are the same thing"
Perfect. Then we keep the accurate voice of the WSJ ref: "Islamic State." Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't, because it's not consistent with the rest of the article, and because we don't parrot what sources say, but we use our own words. Check WP:NOR which says that. Enough of this nonsense already. And, to go back to the original point, keep your vandalism accusations to yourself. LjL (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The WSJ never uses "ISIS" yet the quote states "The WSJ reported..." Very, very questionable to use the WSJ's voice to attribute something the WSJ never does. XavierItzm (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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 Misplaced Pages 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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 November 26

The image of the perpetrator is nominated as FFD. I invite you for commentary. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No-go areas article

Hey there. I just looked up the 'no-go areas' article on wikipedia, found it awfully lacking, and looked at the talkpage. What I found was a clique of biased Wikipedians blocking the addition of (your) useful information and sources to the article, regardless of what arguments or information they were presented. Well, since I am of the opinion the articles you (and another person) intended to add are valuable and useful to improving the quality of the article, I wish to inform you the most persistent of them has, since then, left Misplaced Pages altogether. You can improve the article now. 86.90.43.5 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

About removing material from one's own talk page

Since you called my actions of removing a notice you sent from my own talk page "uncouth", I thought I would point out that per WP:REMOVED, that's perfectly acceptable, and in fact, in my edit summary, I specified that I was acknowledging the notice. I actually also pointed out that I had already received such a notice, which is logged, so you could (and some might argue, should) have checked the logs before sending me the identical notice again; I will refrain from calling your own action "uncouth" and merely consider it stemming from lack of knowldege of the sanctions system. Now that you know, feel free to remove this section from your talk page, too, if you want; there is no problem with that. LjL (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 March

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 No-go area page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (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) 00:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Politicians

You may not be aware that companies and politicians pay people to edit. Supporters do it for free. Misplaced Pages is a big mouthpiece for movies, TV, porn stars, video games and politicians. You need to stand up against this. Some of the politicians' articles are campaign documents.Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pope Paschal II may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• concours d'archevêques, d'évêques et de moines, il dédia et consacra ce fameux monastère 6) Le 9 mars 1107. Le monastère de la Charité-sur-Loire (Nièvre, arrondissement de Cosne) était un

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Are you incredibly biased, or incredibly thick? The citation, as reported in my edit note, was of someone saying "it appears to be". That is not verification of what it is. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

CNN disagrees with you, Kevin McE: "A gay nightclub here was the scene early Sunday of the worst terror attack in U.S. history since 9/11." Sad. XavierItzm (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And as I have already stated in edit notes, a newspaper journalist can make opinionated assertions, encyclopaedic editors can't. There are authorities whose competence it is within, after due investigation, to determine whether this was a terrorist incident: subeditors at CNN are not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm anticipating infantile objections to this edit. Bet? Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) Democrat demanded that the Department of Homeland Security probe why Mateen was somehow able to clear a background check to hold a security officer position at a federal contractor. Writing in late June to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Tester pointed to "clear and troubling signs that Mateen's screening as an employee at G4S was inadequate." The was of particular concern given its work with DHS, that included a recent $234 million contract from DHS, involving in Customs and Border Protection operations along the southern border and aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with immigrant transfers. G4S contracted previously with the military, as well as the State, Justice and Energy Departments, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. As a G4S worker, he was able to secure a state security guard firearm license. Tester wrote,“As the investigations into this tragedy continue, it is imperative that we also ensure that depraved individuals like Mateen are properly vetted and barred from these sensitive posts." “It is clear that the screening procedures in place failed in this case. It is critically important that we all take the necessary steps to ensure we are keeping our nation safe by ensuring that individuals charged with the protection of others are suitable, stable, and capable of fulfilling their duties.” Tester asked Johnson to provide specific information about the background checks done on Mateen, both before he secured the G4S job and during the term of his employment. Tester wants to know how DHS screens its contractors. "Given the screening procedures provided by G4S, would Mateen have been eligible to work at a federal facility or operate federal equipment for DHS?" he inquired. Responding to Edward Snowden's NSA disclosures, during a time when Tester chaired the Senate's Subcommittee on Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce, he introduced his Security Clearance Oversight and Reform Enhancement (SCORE) Act which received Congressional approval. This removed a constraint that barred the Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from utilizing existing resources within the $2 billion DHS revolving fund: They could then be used to investigate the integrity of such background checks. Activist (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Mohammed Daleed and third country resettlement

Hi XavierItzm, I deleted your sentence about Mohammad Daleel from the third country resettlement page again. That is because Mohammed Daleel was an asylum seeker whose application was refused. Third country resettlement is something different. According to my knowledge only refugees (i.e. people who were already given refugee status) who are registered with the UNHCR can make use of third country resettlement. Please visit my talk page if you want to further discuss this. Many thanks, Michtrich (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Munich Shooting

Dear Sir/Madam!

Could You please help me? I saw that You added data concerning a man, who threw a bottle at the perpetrator. We have a disagreement over his name: should we insert it in the article or not. Please share Your oppinion on the talk page, Thomas Salbey section--Ltbuni (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Your recent editing history at 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You've re-added that Africa info 3 times now EvergreenFir (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • The user who posted this deleted the info even after I took it to TP for consensus and the subject was open. As of now, there is no consensus to delete on the TP. XavierItzm (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS. You should not re-add challenged info that's related to a BLP/BDP. But we're beyond that now. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Disagree on treating this as a BLP issue. The perp is dead. XavierItzm (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:BDP. BLP is extended to recently dead people. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I thank you for your patience. The only exception to BLP is for recently dead people, but the criteria for this exception is not at all presented on WP:BDP, and instead emphasis is made on "apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". The problem here is that the living relative who cited the fact now being published by the most important local paper, by the AP, and by AFP... is the father of the deceased. Thanks again, XavierItzm (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well we're currently !voting about it on the talk page so we'll see how that turns out. IMHO, this is borderline and a bit contentious given the politics surrounding the info (immigration, the Somali population in Milwaukee, etc.). BDP isn't just about relatives, but can be about the recently dead themselves if that info is contentious. But some folks agree with keeping it (meaning it's not blatantly something that needs removal) and others don't so the best thing now is the discussion and see what wider consensus thinks. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Parsley Man (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The user who created the complaint counted actual additions of additional WP:RS as "warring". XavierItzm (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The user who posted this deleted the info even after I took it to TP for consensus and the subject was open. As of now, there is no consensus to delete on the TP. XavierItzm (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read the actual thread over. Parsley Man (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is too funny. The complainant got blocked for a week (his third blockout), and his complaint against me did not go anywhere. XavierItzm (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My conduct has nothing to do with yours. You know, these insults of yours are seriously going to get you into trouble someday. Parsley Man (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

XavierItzm gets attacked by A1b2C3d4

You really want everyone to be Muslim, don't you, you racist xenophobe? A1b2C3d4 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Turns out that lovely user A1b2C3d4 was a sock puppet and got permanently banned in December 2016. Pathetic. XavierItzm (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for helping with creation of new article!  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:A Rape on Campus

Until there is consensus to mention a last name, do not mention it anywhere on Misplaced Pages, that includes talk pages. You can discuss the reasons why without mentioning the last name. - GB fan 01:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Amazing the lengths some will go to, to protect hoaxers! XavierItzm (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Immigration and crime in Germany

Maybe you want to have a look at this article? Some "activities" are going on there...--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

What you write in your edit here is clearly not supported by the source you give. On the contrary, it is your WP:POV. If you think that media about the Syrian war misrepresents aspects about the war, please find WP:RS who exactly state this and use them as a source. Or better, collect several WP:RS irrespective of whether they contain your POV and describe all major opinions and sides of the matter. Thank you, LucLeTruc (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the Truc's rant by simply quoting National Public Radio (NPR)'s November 1, 2016 citation that she does not like: "Many here seem to be carrying on with grace and dignity, even enjoying mundane, simple pleasures — like the teenage girls and a 40-something man snapping selfies in front of a giant "I (Heart) Damascus" sculpture in a main square." If she does not like how the U.S. government-funded NPR WP:RS whitewashed the situation in Syria even as the government was killing 500,000 of its own citizens and taking Aleppo, maybe she should take it with government of the U.S.? XavierItzm (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure to whom your "she" refers. Misplaced Pages is simply not the place for your own opinion and subjective interpretation of sources (WP:NPOV). You are obliged to write what is in the source, not how you personally think about such a source or how you personally think about its content. Your sentence was simply and clearly in no way backed by the source you quote above which you used to source the removed sentence in the article.LucLeTruc (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please correct your error

Hello. You falsely attributed to me the revert of content relating the opinion of Mr. Lee, former cybersecurity officer. That was not my edit. Please be very careful not to personalize your talk page discussion, and above all not to misrepresent other editors' words or edits. I'd appreciate it if you would strike that attribution to me and clarify the fact. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the edit reads that SPECIFICO deleted in its entirety an edit containing citations of a Fortune article that contains the opinion of Robert Lee, a former Air Force cyberwarfare officer and cybersecurity fellow at New America, using as reasoning for his edit: "This is weakly sourced and WP:UNDUE redundant commentary by non-experts on a technical matter". Per his request, I will clarify this on the relevant TP. Evidently SPECIFICO is in the wrong as he deleted an entire entry and two WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were referring to a previous edit in which another editor removed the same UNDUE content. The WP principle remains however that you should not personalize your discussion of content on talk and you should remain civil. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33

This is a notice that's put on the talk pages of all editors who are active in the related articles. Not a comment on anything personal. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

Xavieritzm, as i told you above about your additions to Syrian Civil War or during the dabates in burqa or Murder of Maria Ladenburger you need to stay closer to what is written in your sources and not interprete you own WP:POV into these sources as you did in Dublin Regulation. Stick to what is written in the sources and, even more important, try to collect different sources covering the aspects you want to write about and try to balance what they write. Happy editing, LucLeTruc (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a fellow who believes that the New York Times article entitled "Refugee’s Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany," which is all about the murder of Maria Ladenburger, and who is fully named in the article, somehow constitutes original research. Enough said. XavierItzm (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What you write here is in no way related to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH I am talking about and I have explained this to you in considerable detail. Either you are not interested in trying to understand what I and quiet a bunch of other editors are trying to explain to you or your are willingly misinterpreting our arguments. Anyway, you are not allowed to put your WP:POV in Misplaced Pages articles by freely interpreting selected sources and (mis-)interpreting their content as you did multiple times in several articles and you will keep getting reverted If you continue to do so. LucLeTruc (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy. Thank you for telling me about the things I am "not allowed" to do in Misplaced Pages articles. In all fairness, I would like to remind you that you are not allowed to fly an airplane unless you have a pilot's license, and you are not allowed to be the Chancellor of Germany unless you have been duly appointed to that position. I hope you find this information useful to you. XavierItzm (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For tireless work that improves the quality of the encyclopedia. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Keith Ellison

Several weeks ago you were involved in a content dispute over at the Keith Ellison article. I noticed the discussion today and I wanted to share my opinion that the arguments being raised against inclusion of the "controversial figures" material were meritless.

Also, although I see you appear to have taken it in stride, other editors aren't supposed to attack you or question your motives simply for bringing source material to the discussion.

Often you'll find editors who are strongly biased towards a particular individual or viewpoint, and thus when other editors attempt to add commentary that reflects unfavorably on that individual or viewpoint, the deeply biased editor may genuinely see it as an effort to make the article worse, not better.

Hence you get comments like "I get the impression though that you are not interested in developing that article, but merely in inserting negative comments about Ellison." Oftentimes, the other editor doesn't realize how deeply his own biases have compromised his ability to edit fairly and objectively. Get used to it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sweden attack

You gotta enjoy the censorship and denial going on there. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting more and more concerned about TompaDompa's actions at 2017 Stockholm attack. He seems dedicated to suppressing certain information about the attack being Islamic terrorism and such. Perhaps we should report him? Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Senator to DHS: How Did Omar Mateen Pass Employment Check with Federal Contractor, PJ Media, Bridget Johnson June 29, 2016. Retrieved 1 July 2016.
2. Alison Meuse (1 November 2016). "The Damascus Paradox: Everyday Life In A Country Torn By War". NPR National Public Radio. Retrieved 5 November 2016. Many here seem to be carrying on with grace and dignity, even enjoying mundane, simple pleasures — like the teenage girls and a 40-something man snapping selfies in front of a giant "I (Heart) Damascus" sculpture in a main square.
3. MELISSA EDDY. "Refugee's Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Ms. Merkel's measured comments, made just a day before she called for banning full-face veils "wherever legally possible,"