Please find a way to better incorporate your content into the existing content without whitewashing the article. Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
-- 15:23, Tuesday, August 8, 2023 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
hehe :3
Hamburglarita (
talk)
22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
-- 03:48, Wednesday, August 9, 2023 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Selfstudier ( talk) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Refer to my edit here. I'd like to clarify that it was intended to remove an addition by the known sockpuppet Asphonixm. This user has a pattern of adding Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin—a non-notable figure in Indonesia—into multiple Wikipedia articles, thus creating the false impression of the individual's significance in Indonesia, despite his actions being unremarkable for his time. Ckfasdf ( talk) 06:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi; at topics related to the
Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:
Please self-revert 03:26, 27 April 2024. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Please self-revert 22:00, 13 May 2024. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Unbandito. Thank you for your work on Hilde Kramer. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, When your edit was reverted you should go to the talk page and not start edit war. Please self-revert before I'll ask admins to revert it for you. Thanks With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk) 22:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Since WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:GS/UYGHUR have not yet fully migrated to the contentious topics system, these clunky templates are unfortunately still required for notification per WP:OLDDS:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
— Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your continued hard work on The Grayzone, an article so problematic that Glenn Greenwald recently highlighted it as one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Philomathes2357 ( talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
Hi! I noticed you made a recent contribution to the move request page of the Gaza strip famine article. I am a newer user so I can only make edit requests to the page as opposed to participate in broader conversations. However, I wanted to bring relevant information to your attention.
You write that "No informed person or source is suggesting that conditions in Gaza are reversing or are improved" when the first paragraph of the key findings of the June IPC report states "In contrast with the assumptions made for the projection period (March – July 2024), the amount of food and non-food commodities allowed into the northern governorates increased. Additionally, the response in the nutrition, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and health sectors was scaled up. In this context, the available evidence does not indicate that Famine is currently occurring." The latter statement is clearly an improvement, and the overall report is given with "R1+" evidence (medium-quality data, which is standard for IPC). They also include graphs of malnutrition rates over time, with some caveats. https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_Gaza_June2024.pdf (big blue box on page 2)
If you want a secondary expert source you can consider this WFP response https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-response-new-ipc-food-security-assessment-gaza. Here, an organization which is pushing for continued funding and being careful not to build complacency in the context of widespread catastrophic hunger and ongoing famine risk particularly now in the south, still states "The new report indicates a slight improvement compared to the previous assessment in March, which warned of a potential famine in Gaza’s northern governorates by the end of May. The improvement shows the difference that greater access can make." As written, you might seem to be implying that experts don't think that hunger has improved since its nadir in early March, and all changes in famine predictions are due to inability to collect data. Given that I assume you do not wish to spread misinformation, you may want to clean up your wording. Scienceturtle1 ( talk) 23:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Please find a way to better incorporate your content into the existing content without whitewashing the article. Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
-- 15:23, Tuesday, August 8, 2023 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
hehe :3
Hamburglarita (
talk)
22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
-- 03:48, Wednesday, August 9, 2023 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Selfstudier ( talk) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Refer to my edit here. I'd like to clarify that it was intended to remove an addition by the known sockpuppet Asphonixm. This user has a pattern of adding Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin—a non-notable figure in Indonesia—into multiple Wikipedia articles, thus creating the false impression of the individual's significance in Indonesia, despite his actions being unremarkable for his time. Ckfasdf ( talk) 06:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi; at topics related to the
Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:
Please self-revert 03:26, 27 April 2024. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Please self-revert 22:00, 13 May 2024. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Unbandito. Thank you for your work on Hilde Kramer. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, When your edit was reverted you should go to the talk page and not start edit war. Please self-revert before I'll ask admins to revert it for you. Thanks With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk) 22:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Since WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:GS/UYGHUR have not yet fully migrated to the contentious topics system, these clunky templates are unfortunately still required for notification per WP:OLDDS:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
— Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your continued hard work on The Grayzone, an article so problematic that Glenn Greenwald recently highlighted it as one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Philomathes2357 ( talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
Hi! I noticed you made a recent contribution to the move request page of the Gaza strip famine article. I am a newer user so I can only make edit requests to the page as opposed to participate in broader conversations. However, I wanted to bring relevant information to your attention.
You write that "No informed person or source is suggesting that conditions in Gaza are reversing or are improved" when the first paragraph of the key findings of the June IPC report states "In contrast with the assumptions made for the projection period (March – July 2024), the amount of food and non-food commodities allowed into the northern governorates increased. Additionally, the response in the nutrition, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and health sectors was scaled up. In this context, the available evidence does not indicate that Famine is currently occurring." The latter statement is clearly an improvement, and the overall report is given with "R1+" evidence (medium-quality data, which is standard for IPC). They also include graphs of malnutrition rates over time, with some caveats. https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_Gaza_June2024.pdf (big blue box on page 2)
If you want a secondary expert source you can consider this WFP response https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-response-new-ipc-food-security-assessment-gaza. Here, an organization which is pushing for continued funding and being careful not to build complacency in the context of widespread catastrophic hunger and ongoing famine risk particularly now in the south, still states "The new report indicates a slight improvement compared to the previous assessment in March, which warned of a potential famine in Gaza’s northern governorates by the end of May. The improvement shows the difference that greater access can make." As written, you might seem to be implying that experts don't think that hunger has improved since its nadir in early March, and all changes in famine predictions are due to inability to collect data. Given that I assume you do not wish to spread misinformation, you may want to clean up your wording. Scienceturtle1 ( talk) 23:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)