User talk:BlueMadrigal

June 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Historiography of the fall of the Ottoman Empire has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Historiography of the fall of the Ottoman Empire was changed by BlueMadrigal (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.909982 on 2019-06-21T03:27:38+00:00

Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Atatürk's Reforms you included material from a webpage that is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkey–United States relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican People's Party ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Turkey%E2%80%93United_States_relations check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Turkey%E2%80%93United_States_relations?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Return of refugees of the Syrian Civil War
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/31205/9781464814013.pdf?sequence=2, which is not released under a compatible license, because their license does not allow commercial use. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
When copying within Wikipedia, please say so in your edit summary. This is required under the terms of our license, and will help you avoid false positive copyvio reports/removals like happened on Prosecution of Syrian civil war criminals. Please have a look at as an example of how it is done. There's more information at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkey–United States relations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Operation Hammer and Operation Dawn ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Turkey%E2%80%93United_States_relations check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Turkey%E2%80%93United_States_relations?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message
331dot (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Reminder
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks!Deb (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I see you're still not using edit summaries. Please try and remember to do this when you are making such big changes to the article. Deb (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am concerned that you are still ignoring the guideline about edit summaries. Do you realise that this could be considered disruptive editing and that you could be blocked? Deb (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Refugee into European migrant crisis. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Unjust accusation of 'vandalism'
Hello BlueMadrigal. I only recently encountered, that you've characterized a serious and motivated edit of mine, on 13 June on page European migrant crisis, as "vandalism". This seems way out of line, to me. An edit that you disagree with is not automatically vandalism (in Wiki sense). I gave a thorough motivation by that edit. Ofcourse you may always disagree with any given motivation but that does not make the opposed/rejected edit vandalism. Unfortunately, you did not give much further motivation for your revert (except that the information I removed was sourced, but info being sourced is no guarantee that it is relevant to the article or relevant to a specific section in the article). I suppose, that unjustly accusing someone of vandalism can be considered either personal attack or uncivil behaviour in Wikipedia sense, or that for other reasons it is not allowed in Wikipedia. So I just ask and advise you, to stop with unjust 'vandalism'-incriminations, and ofcourse refrain (also) from other unacceptable behaviour (towards colleagues). --Corriebertus (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your English

 * You said: "I'm still waiting for your line by line proof that my English is sub-par."
 * Okay, you asked for it.


 * 1) "This is your first deletion of so called sub-par." This sentence is missing the object.
 * 2) "Also you deleted whole section with the same dubious claim." In this sentence, the article is missing.
 * 3) "Both of these are very informative, well sourced, highly related additions." I assume by "highly related", you mean to the subject of the article, in which case "relevant" would have been the correct word to use.
 * 4) "The second one is about "return of refugees to their homes"." Very unclear - the second what?
 * 5) "An administrator personally supported an article about migrant crisis without the section about how/when/why refugees can turn back to their homes." One hardly knows where to begin with this sentence - it's incomprehensible.
 * 6) "The problem here is the editors (not so shadowy), who own the article." Punctuation is wrong.
 * 7) "It is the deleting editors POV (though at the same time claim that it is my POV) when an editor deletes my additions with a claim that migrant crisis shouldn't include government policies that create the crisis in the first place." Another example of a sentence where the individual words mean something but the sentence makes no sense at all.
 * 8) "That is the main reason it is in the poor shape." The phrase "in poor shape" doesn't require or ever use the definite article.
 * 9) "This behavior became so outrageous that an administrator whose job is to help editors, deletes submissions." I can only guess at your meaning. Are you perhaps trying to say that it is outrageous for an administrator to delete submissions?
 * 10) "There is also another editor one who openly claims that he did not check the source before deleting, because as the delete-or claims there was no reason look at the reference presented in discarding the addition." This makes absolutely no sense either.
 * 11) "Like this is a personal form not an informative place which reflects facts produced by various informative sources." What do you mean by "a personal form"?
 * 12) "I just don't want to argue (like a discussion form) including the virtues of "government policies" or "public opinions" in creating the "Migrant Crisis" to editors who want to keep this article only about the numbers of migrants." What do you mean by "a discussion form"? There is no such phrase in English. You can't say "I just don't want to argue ... including the virtues"; that's not English. Do you know what "virtues" means? Also, "the virtues of [x] in creating..." is not a possible phrase in English. "To" is the wrong preposition to use with the verb "argue".
 * 13) "I'm also not interested why these editors want to keep an article in poor shape as it is." Highly ambiguous. Do you mean "why these editors want to keep an article" or are you suggesting that "these editors" want the article to be in poor shape?
 * 14) "Sadly that also includes a group of Administrators." What does?
 * 15) "I still personally don't know Deb's positive contribution (did created a section?, did improved a layout? did resolved a conflict?) to this article, since I began editing." There seems to be a noun missing from each of the three clauses inside the brackets. Also, "did" is not used with the past tense of the verb: i.e. you can say "X created" or "Did X create?" but not "Did X created?"
 * 16) "I just know I'm told by Deb that I suck at this." This is the first sentence in the whole paragraph that makes sense in English. Deb (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Your edit to European migrant crisis has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Incomprehensible behaviour in European migrant crisis
Hi. Why are you undoing perfectly fine edits like: this one, or this one, or even this one? You should also not remove maintenance templates like the one I added here, and the empty section is a perfectly fine way to show that there is some work to do – but that section is needed if we want to keep consistency on that article. So please stop. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I know you don't like being told that your English isn't good enough, but it isn't. Please feel free to carry on contributing to the Talk page and suggesting improvements. However, if you persist in making bad edits and undoing good ones, without first discussing and getting consensus, I will have to put in a request for a topic ban, i.e. you will not be able to edit this article at all. At the moment you are being let off with a warning because we accept that your intentions are good. Deb (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Refugees as weapons for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Refugees as weapons, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Refugees as weapons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)