Hello, Jochum, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 10:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
November 2008 edit
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Geothermal power worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thank you for your contributions; the level of English which you used in these edits were unfortunately not of a sufficient level to be employed in an encyclopedic article. Please avoid using poor English when making edits in the English version of Wikipedia. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I started out on the talk page, but their seems to be some person who want to stop any discussins regarding certain points of the Second Boer War. The person throwing out my contribution the second time was so fast he can not even have read my references.Jochum (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Your account will be renamed edit
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jochum. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jochum~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
00:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Contributing to wikipedia edit
Hi Jochum, I saw your notes about the Kunduz hospital airstrike at Talk:Kunduz hospital airstrike. I think that all Wikipedia editors who helped to author the article agree that the event is a very serious one. However, your notes are unlikely to improve the article for two reasons:
1) People are very busy, and they won't read everything you've written (too much), and then turn around and do all the work your suggestions require.
2) If you want to improve the article, the best way to do that is by making incremental improvements in the article yourself, while rigorously sourcing all your changes to reliable publications.
I hope that helps. -Darouet (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
November 2015 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Orginal wikipedia text: Undo others' edits with care: Undoing someone's work is a powerful tool, hence the three-revert rule that an editor should never undo the same content more than three times in twenty-four hours (ideally, even less). Try not to revert changes which are not obvious vandalism. If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary like "I disagree, I'll explain why on Talk", and immediately take it to the accompanying talk page to discuss. If someone reverts your edits, do not just add them back without attempting discussion.
That text means also you, you are throwing my text out, I do nothing to a text from you. If you were unsatisfied that I relied on the reference in the linked Wikipedia article, say so before you throw my text out. If you are unsatisfied that their is a mentioning about what the Geneva says in reality, I do not accept that.Jochum (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jochum,
- Thanks for your contributions. It's important in delicate situations like this not to say things which reliable sources haven't already said, because it's easy for nonexperts like us to put together primary sources (like the Geneva Conventions and descriptions of the events of the attack) to reach a conclusion which may not be accurate according to actual legal scholars. Fortunately, in this case there are plenty of sources reporting on experts discussing the potential legal ramifications; our job is not to replace those experts, it's to relay what they have to say. Try searching terms like "Kunduz hospital 'international law'" in your preferred languages to find what's being said, and make sure to stick to what the highest-quality sources say. Here's a great tool to make the citation for you once you have a good source to work from.
- Best, FourViolas (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi FourViolas. How can the original text of the Geneva convention be not a reliable source of information? Please explain it a little better, is the text dangerous? I did not comment on the text, I just plain stated it. It is stated very clearly in easy understandable words. To remove my contribution without prior discussion I both resent and is against the normal Wikipedia practice. You seem to tag team me so that I will be the one to hit the 3 revert limit. You have won the edit war you can be proud. I will stop now.Jochum (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- As I explained at the talk page, it's not that the text is unreliable; it's that you and I aren't qualified to decide whether particular parts of it are relevant to the situation, so we leave those decisions to the experts and just report what they say. The principle requires a lot of humility and modesty; in order to work productively on contentious areas like this, you have to accept that your own opinion isn't the right place to look for what the article should look like. Instead, we must always stick to WP:Verifiable information presented the way RS present it, even if we disagree.
- But again, the solution here isn't to give up on discussing legal ramifications; it's to see what actual legal experts say, and repeat it, as I did when replacing the text you added. FourViolas (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Accusing every other editor you interact with of "censorship" inherently fails to assume good faith, which is required by policy. The actual reasons your edits are problematic have been explained to you repeatedly. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, explained with references to rules in the wikipedia that clearly do not apply except one that I accepted, or have to be stretched out of proportion to fit. Just naming them and hope something sticks is not enough. And you and your friends seem to throw Wikipedia's convections to the wind by not discussing intended changes to my contribution before you remove them. Rules do of course only apply to the others.Jochum (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just because you do not agree with them does not mean they "clearly do not apply." You are going to have more success if you address the issues rather than attacking everyone who disagrees with you. The onus is on you to get consensus for your proposed changes. VQuakr (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, explained with references to rules in the wikipedia that clearly do not apply except one that I accepted, or have to be stretched out of proportion to fit. Just naming them and hope something sticks is not enough. And you and your friends seem to throw Wikipedia's convections to the wind by not discussing intended changes to my contribution before you remove them. Rules do of course only apply to the others.Jochum (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Accusing every other editor you interact with of "censorship" inherently fails to assume good faith, which is required by policy. The actual reasons your edits are problematic have been explained to you repeatedly. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Kunduz hospital airstrike. In this this diff you again implied there is some broad reaching conspiracy against you. Stop. VQuakr (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have read synth in Wikipedia back and forth, I also have read Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not, I think you should take some time and read that. Furthermore if you use synth to remove something out of an article you should than in the talk page explain in what way you believe that the content was synth. Again good at pointing rules out to other, not bothering about following them yourself.Jochum (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:POLICY. WP:ESSAY. They reflect different levels of acceptance. That said, you are quite correct that mere juxtaposition of two concepts does not automatically synthesize a relation ship between the two. The example given in the essay is that we can have two adjacent sentences that say different things about apples, sourced to sources that do not connect the two concepts, and no synthesis has occurred. That is irrelevant to the Kunduz article though, in which you cited primary sources (Geneva Conventions) and then performed your own analysis on whether the attack complied with those conventions. That isn't borderline; it is an exemplary case of the sort of thing we do not do as an encyclopedia. Where did I fail to follow WP:SYNTH per your unsupported accusation above? VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read the complete set of what synth is not? I Did not perform an analysis, I stated what I would quote and that one should look to the Geneva Convention (and the GC applies to any warlike conflict per definition), what part of the Geneva Convention I would quote, without combining quotes. I did not talk about if the attack complied with the convention or not, I just stated the rules. Now explain exactly where I made an analysis that you can call synth. My words were, one should look to the GC.Jochum (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Who says the GC apply? VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- The GC by definition and every country having sign and accepted it. The GC talks about an armed conflict. According to the commentary this definition was used to exclude the wiggle room for a Country to declare that there was no state of war, only a police action or something. The GCIV commentary quote: "It must not be forgotten that the Conventions have been drawn up first and foremost to protect individuals, and not to serve State interests." Do I now have to prove that an international military force was involved? That an hospital was attacked? Those two facts involves the GC per definition and that is not my definition I would assume that should really fall under common knowledge.Jochum (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Who says the GC apply? VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read the complete set of what synth is not? I Did not perform an analysis, I stated what I would quote and that one should look to the Geneva Convention (and the GC applies to any warlike conflict per definition), what part of the Geneva Convention I would quote, without combining quotes. I did not talk about if the attack complied with the convention or not, I just stated the rules. Now explain exactly where I made an analysis that you can call synth. My words were, one should look to the GC.Jochum (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:POLICY. WP:ESSAY. They reflect different levels of acceptance. That said, you are quite correct that mere juxtaposition of two concepts does not automatically synthesize a relation ship between the two. The example given in the essay is that we can have two adjacent sentences that say different things about apples, sourced to sources that do not connect the two concepts, and no synthesis has occurred. That is irrelevant to the Kunduz article though, in which you cited primary sources (Geneva Conventions) and then performed your own analysis on whether the attack complied with those conventions. That isn't borderline; it is an exemplary case of the sort of thing we do not do as an encyclopedia. Where did I fail to follow WP:SYNTH per your unsupported accusation above? VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)