Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian!
Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —
Anita5192 (
talk) 23:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Blue Edits. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to
Prisma (app). While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.
Blue Edits (
talk) 17:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Urgrund
Hello 93.72.49.123, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Urgrund, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. BangJan1999 01:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to
Creatine, did not appear to be constructive and have been
reverted. 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.
NP83 (
talk) 12:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Isabelle Belato. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions—specifically
this edit to
May Golan—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Isabelle Belato
🏳🌈 14:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- How is it not constructive? It's her own words. 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 14:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
May Golan. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —
Ingenuity (
talk •
contribs) 15:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- @
Isabelle Belato @
Ingenuity How is it not constructive? It's her own words.
93.72.49.123 (
talk) 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's not due for the lede, specially in wiki voice. Consider discussing in the talk page before re-adding the information. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 15:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
To Pimp a Butterfly. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
TheAmazingPeanuts (
talk) 21:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Riverbend21. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Privilege have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Riverbend21 (
talk) 15:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with
this edit to
William McGurn. Your edits appear to be
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk) 18:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
Neville Roy Singham, you may be
blocked from editing. In this case, the controversy section already detailed his views and contributions; the additional not-neutral POV material was not required, or should have been added to the talk page.
Smallangryplanet (
talk) 21:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
And read people's replies, if you are told "get consensus" that does not mean "we need more sources" it means you have to start a talk page thread asking for wp:consensus. And also read wp:editwar and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Kpgjhpjm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
David O. Sacks have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Kpg
jhp
jm 14:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)== Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution ==
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Deconstruction into
Différance. 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., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.
DanCherek (
talk) 16:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the particular source, you’re welcome to raise the issue on the article’s talk page. Also, please do not violate WP:NPA. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I already gave a reason for deleting the source in my edit summaries. You, on the other hand, have not provided any reasons for keeping it, other than it being published by Routledge (which is good but by itself does not make a source reliable).
- My calling you a "weirdo" is no more of a personal attack than you accusing me of having cognitive dissonance.
93.72.49.123 (
talk) 11:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I said nothing about it being from Routledge; that was @ Alaexis in his edit summary.
- I read the article-length version Boyd-Barrett published, which is limited to discussing the early 2014 events in Crimea, Odesa, and Mariupol.
- Keep in mind, this is an American university professor who researched similar issues earlier in the millennium, who appears to be from that generation (Boomers) of academics. Research on media bias tends to attract naturally skeptical and contrarian people.
- The article is peer-reviewed research in a prominent journal, Journalism Studies. Because it is on the topic of mainstream media biases favoring the POV that you have taken in previous edits to other articles, therefore, according to you, it is fringe.
- That basically seems to be the issue. And from the discussions I recently had with a media major acquaintance after her college held a virtual event with Douglas Macgregor (whom we both mostly disagreed with but raised a few interesting and concerning points), it’s hardly a fringe viewpoint in the field of media studies to critically examine the kind of coverage we’ve seen. Hell, my memories of the American news coverage in 2014 don’t have much in common with what WP and RS say happened.
- As for his characterization of the Maidan as a “coup”, well, it’s technically entirely not inaccurate, looking at the raw facts. The same with popular feelings in Crimea, and the clashes in Odesa and Mariupol, and Western media coverage thereon (including retrospectives during the 2022 siege).
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help with further evaluation of the source.
- Regarding my use of the term “cognitive dissonance” in a previous edit summary, while I suppose it may have been better not to make it, it was not intended as a personal attack, but merely a reflexive characterization of the precise nature of the good faith that I believed the edit to have been motivated by. While the term does get bandied about on the internet now and then by others, I might as well provide excessive context and share that last night, I had an extensive discussion on a particular instance of cognitive dissonance with two friends of similar age and gender and, funny enough, cited WP as describing the exact issue we were having (with a citation).
- Because of the particular nature of this dispute, I view it as existential to Wikipedia and am frankly willing to take it as far as necessary, even to ArbCom (although I have no wish to ever visit that place, nor do I have any clue how it works).
- Now, if you’ll excuse me, I was supposed to be asleep around 6 or 7 UTC. Due to pressing matters, I may not be back on WP for 48-72 hours. Please don’t interpret any further lack of responses as anything other than preoccupation with Real Life concerns such as college, work, family, and girls, all of which I expect to have to deal with during that time. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 12:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you did here
[1] on
15-minute city. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been reverted. Repeated disruptive editing may result in the
loss of editing privileges. signed,
Willondon (
talk) 22:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- You could have made your observations far more usefully at the the talk page. Why should you expect anyone to guess what you mean? --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 09:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Having gotten that off my chest, you may be surprised that in fact I agree with you: the problem is only that you didn't accompany the tag with an associated talk page section. Which I have now done, see talk:15-minute city#D'Acci and the T*-minute city. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi 93.72.49.123,
I have noticed that you have recently edited pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please note that, due to community consensus documented at WP:GS/RUSUKR, only extended-confirmed editors may make such edits.
When in doubt, please assume that a topic is covered by this restriction. We call this "broadly construed". If this still leaves you unsure about whether a topic is affected by the restriction, feel free to ask on my talk page.
This is not widely announced to newcomers, so I'm not blaming or condemning you for not knowing about this. I'm also not saying that your editing has been problematic in any other way. Your edit may well have been perfectly fine in all other regards, yet may have been removed for this reason.
Additionally, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has recognized "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" as a generally contentious topic area. Don't worry: The restriction to extended-confirmed editors is about the Russo-Ukrainian War, not the entirety of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The box below contains standardized advice for everyone.
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
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.
This may be confusing, so I'll attempt to summarize it:
- Only extended-confirmed editors may edit pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Details and exceptions can be found at WP:GS/RUSUKR.
- All edits about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, by all users, need to be done with extra care.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if there are any questions.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 21:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I’ve reverted your recent edits to Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Claims that are directly and clearly attributed to combatants’ defense ministries are generally considered acceptable.
And by the way, consistently not applying this standard would obviously wreak havoc all over current conflicts and general military affairs topics. It would get even worse once you start tracing claims through secondary sources back to defense ministries.
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 03:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Blaze Wolf. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Talk:Moms for Liberty have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks. ―
Blaze Wolf
Talkblaze__wolf 02:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:John Clauser.
Sundayclose (
talk) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at James Kirchick shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose ( talk) 01:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
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.
You are currently prohibited from editing about the following topics:
- The Russo-Ukrainian war ( WP:GS/RUSUKR);
This is because you are not extended-confirmed on the encyclopedia. Carter00000 ( talk) 03:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- You aren't a registered editor so can't acquire ECP. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) If you reply here, please ping me by using {{
re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 03:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You have been sanctioned IPs are not allowed to edit articles in this topic area: you have been warned, blocked, and yet continued.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Doug Weller
talk 08:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).
Doug Weller talk 08:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Doug Weller Honestly, the idea that this perfectly reasonable, objectively beneficial, rule-adhering edit warranted a 3-month block is astounding. Did you even read WP:NOTAMB before reverting it? At this point, why not just write a bot that would automatically protect every page that contains "Russia" and "Ukraine" in any order? 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 20:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian!
Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —
Anita5192 (
talk) 23:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Blue Edits. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to
Prisma (app). While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.
Blue Edits (
talk) 17:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Urgrund
Hello 93.72.49.123, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Urgrund, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. BangJan1999 01:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to
Creatine, did not appear to be constructive and have been
reverted. 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.
NP83 (
talk) 12:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Isabelle Belato. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions—specifically
this edit to
May Golan—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Isabelle Belato
🏳🌈 14:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- How is it not constructive? It's her own words. 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 14:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
May Golan. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —
Ingenuity (
talk •
contribs) 15:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- @
Isabelle Belato @
Ingenuity How is it not constructive? It's her own words.
93.72.49.123 (
talk) 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's not due for the lede, specially in wiki voice. Consider discussing in the talk page before re-adding the information. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 15:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
To Pimp a Butterfly. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
TheAmazingPeanuts (
talk) 21:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Riverbend21. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Privilege have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Riverbend21 (
talk) 15:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with
this edit to
William McGurn. Your edits appear to be
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk) 18:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
Neville Roy Singham, you may be
blocked from editing. In this case, the controversy section already detailed his views and contributions; the additional not-neutral POV material was not required, or should have been added to the talk page.
Smallangryplanet (
talk) 21:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
And read people's replies, if you are told "get consensus" that does not mean "we need more sources" it means you have to start a talk page thread asking for wp:consensus. And also read wp:editwar and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Kpgjhpjm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
David O. Sacks have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Kpg
jhp
jm 14:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)== Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution ==
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Deconstruction into
Différance. 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., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.
DanCherek (
talk) 16:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the particular source, you’re welcome to raise the issue on the article’s talk page. Also, please do not violate WP:NPA. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I already gave a reason for deleting the source in my edit summaries. You, on the other hand, have not provided any reasons for keeping it, other than it being published by Routledge (which is good but by itself does not make a source reliable).
- My calling you a "weirdo" is no more of a personal attack than you accusing me of having cognitive dissonance.
93.72.49.123 (
talk) 11:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I said nothing about it being from Routledge; that was @ Alaexis in his edit summary.
- I read the article-length version Boyd-Barrett published, which is limited to discussing the early 2014 events in Crimea, Odesa, and Mariupol.
- Keep in mind, this is an American university professor who researched similar issues earlier in the millennium, who appears to be from that generation (Boomers) of academics. Research on media bias tends to attract naturally skeptical and contrarian people.
- The article is peer-reviewed research in a prominent journal, Journalism Studies. Because it is on the topic of mainstream media biases favoring the POV that you have taken in previous edits to other articles, therefore, according to you, it is fringe.
- That basically seems to be the issue. And from the discussions I recently had with a media major acquaintance after her college held a virtual event with Douglas Macgregor (whom we both mostly disagreed with but raised a few interesting and concerning points), it’s hardly a fringe viewpoint in the field of media studies to critically examine the kind of coverage we’ve seen. Hell, my memories of the American news coverage in 2014 don’t have much in common with what WP and RS say happened.
- As for his characterization of the Maidan as a “coup”, well, it’s technically entirely not inaccurate, looking at the raw facts. The same with popular feelings in Crimea, and the clashes in Odesa and Mariupol, and Western media coverage thereon (including retrospectives during the 2022 siege).
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help with further evaluation of the source.
- Regarding my use of the term “cognitive dissonance” in a previous edit summary, while I suppose it may have been better not to make it, it was not intended as a personal attack, but merely a reflexive characterization of the precise nature of the good faith that I believed the edit to have been motivated by. While the term does get bandied about on the internet now and then by others, I might as well provide excessive context and share that last night, I had an extensive discussion on a particular instance of cognitive dissonance with two friends of similar age and gender and, funny enough, cited WP as describing the exact issue we were having (with a citation).
- Because of the particular nature of this dispute, I view it as existential to Wikipedia and am frankly willing to take it as far as necessary, even to ArbCom (although I have no wish to ever visit that place, nor do I have any clue how it works).
- Now, if you’ll excuse me, I was supposed to be asleep around 6 or 7 UTC. Due to pressing matters, I may not be back on WP for 48-72 hours. Please don’t interpret any further lack of responses as anything other than preoccupation with Real Life concerns such as college, work, family, and girls, all of which I expect to have to deal with during that time. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 12:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you did here
[1] on
15-minute city. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been reverted. Repeated disruptive editing may result in the
loss of editing privileges. signed,
Willondon (
talk) 22:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- You could have made your observations far more usefully at the the talk page. Why should you expect anyone to guess what you mean? --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 09:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Having gotten that off my chest, you may be surprised that in fact I agree with you: the problem is only that you didn't accompany the tag with an associated talk page section. Which I have now done, see talk:15-minute city#D'Acci and the T*-minute city. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi 93.72.49.123,
I have noticed that you have recently edited pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please note that, due to community consensus documented at WP:GS/RUSUKR, only extended-confirmed editors may make such edits.
When in doubt, please assume that a topic is covered by this restriction. We call this "broadly construed". If this still leaves you unsure about whether a topic is affected by the restriction, feel free to ask on my talk page.
This is not widely announced to newcomers, so I'm not blaming or condemning you for not knowing about this. I'm also not saying that your editing has been problematic in any other way. Your edit may well have been perfectly fine in all other regards, yet may have been removed for this reason.
Additionally, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has recognized "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" as a generally contentious topic area. Don't worry: The restriction to extended-confirmed editors is about the Russo-Ukrainian War, not the entirety of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The box below contains standardized advice for everyone.
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
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.
This may be confusing, so I'll attempt to summarize it:
- Only extended-confirmed editors may edit pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Details and exceptions can be found at WP:GS/RUSUKR.
- All edits about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, by all users, need to be done with extra care.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if there are any questions.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 21:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I’ve reverted your recent edits to Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Claims that are directly and clearly attributed to combatants’ defense ministries are generally considered acceptable.
And by the way, consistently not applying this standard would obviously wreak havoc all over current conflicts and general military affairs topics. It would get even worse once you start tracing claims through secondary sources back to defense ministries.
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 03:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Blaze Wolf. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Talk:Moms for Liberty have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks. ―
Blaze Wolf
Talkblaze__wolf 02:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:John Clauser.
Sundayclose (
talk) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at James Kirchick shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose ( talk) 01:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
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.
You are currently prohibited from editing about the following topics:
- The Russo-Ukrainian war ( WP:GS/RUSUKR);
This is because you are not extended-confirmed on the encyclopedia. Carter00000 ( talk) 03:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- You aren't a registered editor so can't acquire ECP. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Ks0stm (
T•
C•
G•
E) If you reply here, please ping me by using {{
re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 03:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)The following topic ban now applies to you:
You have been sanctioned IPs are not allowed to edit articles in this topic area: you have been warned, blocked, and yet continued.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Doug Weller
talk 08:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).
Doug Weller talk 08:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Doug Weller Honestly, the idea that this perfectly reasonable, objectively beneficial, rule-adhering edit warranted a 3-month block is astounding. Did you even read WP:NOTAMB before reverting it? At this point, why not just write a bot that would automatically protect every page that contains "Russia" and "Ukraine" in any order? 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 20:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
|
| This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |